response 25 of 52:

Oct 24 01:18 UTC 1994

I hope you're able to solve the disk problem soon, STeve, and I
appreciate the work you've been putting into it.  I realize it's a
tough one and very time consuming.  I also am quite aware that we are
not a for-pay service, that we depend on volunteers to do stuff, and
that we can't be held to the standards of dependability of, say, a
Genie or a CompuServe.  But as a group I think we have to ask ourselves
the question:  Is there some point, some degree of unreliability, at
which responsible professional and management standards dictate that 
we say to the public that we will not expand service or accept new
memberships until our technical problems are brought under some
reasonable level of control?

If there is such a point, and it's not where we are now -- crashing
on an almost daily basis and losing users' and system files in
unpredictable ways for causes not yet understood -- then I'm not
sure I know where the point would be.

response 27 of 52:

Oct 24 02:46 UTC 1994

Would it then follow that all Board members are considered staff since
they read the staff confernce and get baff mail?  If someone does
both jobs then no problem but maybe Board members ought not automatically
be considered staff.  Maybe adding some criteria stating how a staff
person is providing a technical hardware or software service or
level of expertise?

response 29 of 52:

Oct 24 03:52 UTC 1994

In response to Remmers' #25:
>But as a group I think we have to ask ourselves
>the question:  Is there some point, some degree of unreliability, at
>which responsible professional and management standards dictate that
>we say to the public that we will not expand service or accept
>new memberships until our technical problems are brought under some
>reasonable level of control?

No , in my opinion there is not.  People can read the warning and decide
for themselves if they want to wait and try us out later or just come on
in and ignore the dust.  The only reason I could see for shutting down
newuser is if its being active was creating a technical problem for staff.  If
that were the case THEN I would say
that we should shut it down.  But if we are only worried about people not
liking their first experience here...Hey that's their lookout.  We
tell them they make the decision.
kdkdkdk

response 31 of 52:

Oct 24 13:47 UTC 1994

I have a problem with the ethics behind the philosophy that no matter
how bad it gets, its okay to accept new accounts and membership money
as long as the staff doesn't see a technical problem with it.

And then there's the issue of our image:  If we're serious about
providing services to other non-profit organizations and being more
than just a fun place to hang out, we have to establish some credibility
in the community as a reliable system.  I think an up-front message
telling prospective newusers that we're having problems and to try
again later would look better to someone checking out grex than a
bunch of disclaimers that leave the impression that we're an "as is"
system.  Granted we're talking about a choice between the lesser of
two evils.

In any case, I think there's a role for the board here; it's not just
a technical issue.

response 33 of 52:

Oct 24 15:57 UTC 1994

An interesting conflict of essentially very similar views. I would
go for tsty's first declaration, but still not turn off newuser. A
person does not have to pay to run newuser, and I don't see why 
even a *nonuser* can't join to "support the cause". I've gone into
stores that are being renovated, and even museums with exhibits
"in preparation". I haven't thought less of them, for that (especially
when they don't charge). 

response 35 of 52:

Oct 26 06:10 UTC 1994

I don't see any ethical problem with asking for donations even though though
our system isn't working as well as we would like. I also don't see what that
question has to do with turning off newuser. If our reliability problems
were tied to newuser, then I would agree, but they're not.

Turning off newuser seems very un-open and un-Grexlike. I'm against it.
I agree with STeve on this.

The staff policy seems OK with rcurl's amendments. I disagree with STeve
that this creates a burdensome bureaucracy.

response 37 of 52:

Oct 27 06:01 UTC 1994

..because they can't figure things out for themselves, right?

response 39 of 52:

Oct 28 22:49 UTC 1994

Hey, this isn't all that big of a deal really.  If we want to invite folks
to check us out while we are crashing regularly and losing files that we
don't even know are lost but which will keep folks from being able to log
back in a second time, so be it.  This system isn't for wimps and if they
can't handle a little chaos it ain't our fault.  Survival of the
technically competent and all.  So let's just say it up front and be done
with it. 

We don't owe anyone a problem free ride but I think at some point
*like daily crashing* we should take a look at the gauntlet we are
setting up for new arrivals.

But really, no big deal.  They'll either call back and find their
way or they won't.

response 41 of 52:

Oct 29 02:23 UTC 1994

   Mary, I think you're being a little unfair here.  Most, and I do
litterally mean most of the files that we've lost on /home are from
accounts that are not used.  Yes, there have been bad hitt on people
like carson, atul and Rane's mail directory, but overall, the effect
has been surprisingly minor.  It doesn't make me feel much better,
however, and thats why we've been putting time on this.
   Unforunately, daily crashes aren't so rare in the public-access
community, either.  I'm sure as hell aiming for uptime periods like
we used to have, like *one month*, back when we were on the little
Fujitsu disks.  But with the activity on Grex lately, *everything*
on the system is getting stressed.  M-Net crases every few days; most
of the BSDI systems I know of that get heavily used crash often, too.
   So in light of that, perhaps people are more tolerant that I would
have thought, about the crashes?  It never ceases to amaze me that our
usage is going *up* during all this unstability.  I've had many write
sessions with new people, and I've been telling them about our problems,
etc., but they do seem to be comming back.  And we're breaking records
for usage, *still*: 707 users on in one day, 112 newusers in one day.
An Average of more than *4,000* pieces of mail handled by Grex, every
day--Thats more than 120,000 pieces in a month--totaling one million
pieces in a year.

   So Mary, while I agree with you that our unstabilites are really
bad, and don't get me wrong--I *hate* seeing Grex limp--we're still
doing OK.  Not great, but OK.  We do have to fix things, and soon,
I know, else our loyal user base *will* start to erode.  Thats why
we're at work on the problem.

response 43 of 52:

Oct 29 16:33 UTC 1994

   Thats an interesting way to put it Mary. ;-)

   I'd support and even push for Grex being closed if the circumstances
warrented it.  Just two weeks ago staff agreed to keep Grex off the net
becuase of the vandalism done to it--had it been just a shade worse, I'd
have argued that Grex be off limits to all but staff during that time.
I think Greg would agree with me on that.  So I think we're willing to
restrict access to Grex *if we really have to*.
   But your point of watching that we don't become to orgasmic over
recent growth to see what needs to be done is an excellent point and
must be remembered.

response 45 of 52:

Oct 30 03:06 UTC 1994

        MSEN was up for 33 straight days, then they went and spoiled it and
rebooted yesterday.
        Jim, I told STeve that M-Net reboots every few days.  It's been
months since we went more than 4 days without a reboot.  Usually it
reboots pretty cleanly, though.

response 47 of 52:

Oct 30 17:07 UTC 1994

Obviously my heresy, er, suggestion that newuser be closed down didn't
gain widespread support, and maybe it was an overreaction on my part to
increasing frustration at finding the system down most mornings when
I'd try to log in, and increasing unhappiness at reports of losing
system and user files.  But I was moved to ask myself:  What's a new
person going to think who comes on board right now, sees an unreliable,
spottily accessible system, and at the same time sees himself being
invited to send in membership money?

And no, my concern had nothing to do with whether we are "selling
internet services", as somebody suggested earlier.  It was concern over
continuing to accept money for an unreliable service, period.  I'm a
bit taken aback by the notion that I seem to read in some people's
responses that no matter how bad things get, it's appropriate to just
throw a bunch of disclaimers at people and carry on with business as
usual.  Is there NO point at which things like professional standards
come into play?

A point I made earlier, and which folks have ignored as far as I can
tell, concerns our image and credibility.  If we truly want to move in
the direction of offering additional services to nonprofit
organizations, for example, we need to establish a reputation as a
reasonably reliable, dependable service.  It's inconsistent to say on
the one hand that we're strictly an "as is" service and at the same
time present ourselves as an organization that can satisfy the
electronic needs of the nonprofit community.

response 49 of 52:

Oct 30 20:51 UTC 1994

        Doesn't STeve expect to be able to fix the problem in the very near
future?  If so, it's kind of a moot point whether newuser should be 
turned off, isn't it?