|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 470 responses total. |
tsty
|
|
response 175 of 470:
| 
Apr 23 09:15 UTC 1996 |
i also wsee no benefit in a separate fw conference.
|
carson
|
|
response 176 of 470:
|
Apr 23 11:49 UTC 1996 |
Organizational benefit; same reason we don't just have one conference.
|
dang
|
|
response 177 of 470:
|
Apr 23 15:40 UTC 1996 |
I think we have a misunderstanding here. The proposed conferencing cf is not
a "seperate fw conference" as proposed. It is another cf dedicated to
discussion of conferencing, on the order of coop, newsletter, and other cfs
devoted to things that make grex run. (Garage, for instance) It's not a staff
cf for fws. (As I see it. If that
is what is being proposed, I retract my offer to cofw.)
|
mdw
|
|
response 178 of 470:
|
Apr 23 16:35 UTC 1996 |
I think having such a separate cf will tend to create more of a schism
between "those in power" and those not; and I think that's a bad idea.
I also think that the existing cfs, such as coop & info, should be
sufficient for this kind of traffic - and, because other things also
happen here, it's more likely to receive the right sort of attention.
|
carson
|
|
response 179 of 470:
|
Apr 24 00:29 UTC 1996 |
hmm... perhaps a guide to "relevant" FW-related items? That incorporates
Marcus's point which, after reminding myself of M-Net, I agree with.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 180 of 470:
|
Apr 24 00:50 UTC 1996 |
marcus has apoint...my whole idea was based on the presumption that
what is discussed in coop is assumed to be related to the board. Since
conferencing is not a board matter, it just seems logical to have
those discussions somewhere else.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 181 of 470:
|
Apr 24 04:42 UTC 1996 |
False. Coop is is the conference for organization and management matters
concerning the Grex (more exactly, CCI). The board determines policy
and controls the purse, but given the policy and the budget, the
organization must still be managed and organized to be effective. That
involves everything considering the volunteer activities conducted by
members *within* the policies (and bylaws and articles). Very little
is "related to the board", unless a policy change, or money, is needed.
|
scott
|
|
response 182 of 470:
|
Apr 25 16:07 UTC 1996 |
Policy question: Do we allow conference creation if we don't agree with the
topic? If not, is an FW conference sufficiently "staffish" to require
discussion of conference creation?
|
dang
|
|
response 183 of 470:
|
Apr 26 00:14 UTC 1996 |
Well, if it's proposed as a comunity cf, like agora and coop, I'd say it
requires discussion. As to the other question, I'd say we can't stop a cf
creation because we don't like to topic unless the topic is dangerous or
illegal. So far, all that's been necessary is a suggestion, an fw, and time.
Is that to change?
|
scott
|
|
response 184 of 470:
|
Apr 26 00:41 UTC 1996 |
No, I don't think it's changed. I guess that if we have an FW, and a name
for the thing, I (as cfadm) will go ahead and create it.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 185 of 470:
|
Apr 26 02:15 UTC 1996 |
The thing is I dont want a fw conf unless the other fw's want it...I
must say I'm discouraged by the amount of apathy this idea has encountered.
It just tells me that there arent that many people who REALLY care
about conferencing. We have a Helper conf, we have a Staff conf, we have
a Newsletter conf that nobody uses, I dont understand how it possibly
hurts anything to have a conf that is devoted to conferencing.
Since this was already argued about, I'm going to flatly contradict
rcurl, coop exsists to facilitate dialogue between users and the BOARD...go
back and read the last coop, where I was corrected in my assumption that
this conf was here to create lines of communications between STAFF and
users. I was told specifically that the staff are janitors and it is the
board whose decisions are affected by what goes on in coop.
If this is the case, conferencing is inappropriate to discuss except in
technical terms to discuss here. The board has nothing to do with
conferencing.
This is a pet peeve with me, but I dont think coop is defined well enough.
Even among board and staff there are differing ideas as to what should be
discussed here. When I had a problem with brighn and selena and their
fair witnessing policies in hsex, I had no option but to bring it to coop.
Selena said she would have deleted any such discusion in hsex. But people
told me coop is improper. The Board cant take action. The staff cant take
action. So why was I entering my complaints in coop? Because there was
no other place appopriate! Selena was right, getting into technical fw
questions in a topical conf isnt advancing the topic. What is needed is
a place where these things can be discussed. And coop is not the place!
So what I want is a place where the people who care about conferencing
can create a dialogue. I can enter something in conferencing but
honestly I dont care what staff has to say because only certain staffers
actively conf. Marcus Watts (he can correct me if I'm wrong) wants this
discussion in coop because he doesnt want to read another conf. He's not
actively involved in conferencing these days. He's probably got a life. He
was co-fw of hsex for six months and didnt enter one item!
And thats fine...what he brings to grex is great and grex needs him, but
let those who REALLY care about conferencing and want to put in the time
to make these confs work, have their own place to discuss these things.
Such a conf as I'm suggesting would be a tacit acknowledgement that
conferencing is not something the board or staff should be involved in.
Those who run the confs should be able to discuss these thing and develop
conferencing without having to go running before staff or the board,
which is what posting on coop is doing, just to establish a dialogue. I
think it is imperative, not just important, that conferencing be removed
from the administration of this system. The only way this can be
accomplished is by separating the discussion.
This is the sort of conf that only works if it carries the air of
"official" status that a coop does. It cant be simply one person 's
iniatitive because that would be misleading. As it is, every time a
conferencing issue is brought up in coop, one person or another says its
inappopriate and board/staff has nothing to do with conferencing. So
lets give conf'ing activities its own conf! Lets deliberately keep it
seperate from coop. It would not only underscore the importance in which
staff/board views conf'ing, it would be an outright statement that such
is separate from system administration!
|
popcorn
|
|
response 186 of 470:
|
Apr 26 04:30 UTC 1996 |
No no no no no. The co-op conference is for *everybody* to collectively make
decisions about Grex. Not the staff. Not the board. *Everybody*. The
board has regular meetings where they can vote on things that affect Grex,
but the members can always hold a vote on anything and overrule the board,
and anybody can become a member.
I don't think people are apathetic about a conferencing conference because
they don't care about conferencing. Rather, you're the only voice claiming
that conferencing on Grex is gravely ill; a lot of other people seem to think
it's just fine and doesn't need fixing. Personally, I think a conferencing
conference would be likely to be sparsely attended; I don't think it would
have enough participants to get good discussions going. This would fail to
attract the people you'd need to have there (the fair witnesses of other
conferences), and the whole thing would fizzle quickly, kind of the way the
Grexnews conference did.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 187 of 470:
|
Apr 26 04:31 UTC 1996 |
I'll be creating an Auction conference some time in the next week or so.
See Agora item 56 for more info. Robh and I will be co-fair witnesses.
|
scott
|
|
response 188 of 470:
|
Apr 26 10:51 UTC 1996 |
Heck, it doesn't matter if a conference is only desired by the FW; in this
brave new online world the conf. will be created anyway. We are all
publishers, and if somebody wants an FW conf. then it's up to them to bring
in the participants or just live with a personal conference.
|
davel
|
|
response 189 of 470:
|
Apr 26 13:56 UTC 1996 |
Well, it's reasonable to ask whether the perpetrator, um, *proposer* I mean,
wants the cf under available conditions & after discussion. But we shouldn't
prevent anyone from starting a cf devoted to something like this, merely make
clear that it *is* a personal conference. It even *could* evolve into
something more, if it were used by those it's aimed at. I think that is quite
unlikely, & that it would be unfortunate if it happened; but so what?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 190 of 470:
|
Apr 26 18:54 UTC 1996 |
Ah.. a philosopher!
|
adbarr
|
|
response 191 of 470:
|
Apr 26 21:25 UTC 1996 |
A philosopher, perhaps. The question is how do we achieve dominance over
our inferior neighbors! We need _leadership_! We need _power_!
|
chelsea
|
|
response 192 of 470:
|
Apr 26 21:32 UTC 1996 |
Kerouac should have his Fairwitness conference. I hope he is able to find
lots of folks willing to meta-discuss each and every detail of how
conferences should be run. But anything affecting system policy would
have to end up in Co-op at some point. It's in the bylaws. But I could
see some real value in his having a Fairwitness conference. Yep, sure
could.
|
scott
|
|
response 193 of 470:
|
Apr 26 21:34 UTC 1996 |
Well, if it is a friendly place to post hints, tricks, etc., then it would
be a useful conference. If you've ever seen the "vi editor" item in Jellyware
you know what I mean.
|
chelsea
|
|
response 194 of 470:
|
Apr 26 21:39 UTC 1996 |
Scratch that "it's in the bylaws" bit. It's not that clearly stated
in the Bylaws that there is one designated conference where system
policy is discussed before being enacted or changed. It should have been.
Who wrote those dang things anyhow? ;-)
|
scott
|
|
response 195 of 470:
|
Apr 26 21:58 UTC 1996 |
It just occurred to me what might happen if Carson lets other people find out
about all his bizarre FW tricks...... ;)
|
kerouac
|
|
response 196 of 470:
|
Apr 27 00:32 UTC 1996 |
#194...thats exactly what I've been saying...no where is coop clearly
defined...I think there are a lot of presumptions about coop which
are not backed up by anything. One of the reasons I was against having
elected coop fw's is that as things stand it is the fw that defines this
conf, just like any other conf. You may regard coop differently than
other confs, but it is simply not. Grex doesnt own the coop conf. Ts and
Nephi might decide at some point
that they want coop to be a fly fishing conf or something. There is no
point in having elected fw's in coop unless there are a lot more controls
and unless things are far more defined.
The only way to change this is to have a board vote stipulating that the
board runs coop and that the fw's of coop, however chosen, serve at the
discretion of the board.
The FW/Conferencing conf is something I have suggested. I dont want it
to be "my" conf, I dont even want to be fw necessarily. I dont know why
any conf suggestion is regarded as some personal objective of the
proposer. The storage conf was my idea, but I wanted it for the system
not for me and other people are fw's That, and this, are the sort of
confs that are meant to be system confs, like coop, run collectively for
the benefit of Grex.
Confcom confs are common on other large boards. I havent been saying
that confing is lousy here, but I have been saying it has been and can be
better. Completely rejecting this idea is a tacit admission that better
communication between the confs isnt going to make the environment
better, and that conferencing on grex is secondary and if it becomes
cliquish and centers around the same users and slowly dies out, fine.
If a car can run 40 mph and not fall apart some people would consider it
fine, but if you really have places to to, you junk that old transmission
and look for ways to make it go faster. This conf isnt "necessary", but
it is a good idea. It hurts nothing and noone. It could end up helping
a lot.
|
dang
|
|
response 197 of 470:
|
Apr 27 00:34 UTC 1996 |
That might be fun. :)
|
remmers
|
|
response 198 of 470:
|
Apr 27 10:42 UTC 1996 |
I agree with #188.
|
chelsea
|
|
response 199 of 470:
|
Apr 27 11:10 UTC 1996 |
Co-op is different from other conferences. The Co-op fairwitnesses
do not define the conference or decide how it goes. As much as
anyone owns anything here it's the Co-op participants who own the
conference. If you disagree with any of this I suggest you ask
the Co-op participants and they'll set you straight.
I don't give a nilly how many meta-conferences there are but all
policy discussion should end up in one spot. We shouldn't expect
someone who cares about the system to keep up with multiple
policy-setting conferences.
|