|
Grex > Coop8 > #19: What Should The Co-op Login Screen Say? |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 280 responses total. |
kaplan
|
|
response 25 of 280:
| 
Feb 12 02:11 UTC 1996 |
Re 23, Yes, there's an easy solution. Ask the fw's to move the contents of
login to bull.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 26 of 280:
|
Feb 12 06:50 UTC 1996 |
This response has been erased.
|
tsty
|
|
response 27 of 280:
|
Feb 12 09:35 UTC 1996 |
nephi and I hvae received (and would liek to receive more, i guess) ideas
about keeping/altering/eliminating the login screen.
At this point, i guess we are in "sponge" mode.
for another point, anyone who has a clue as to me knows that i
don't "play to the crowd" simply because a crowd has gathered. nephi
is learning that.
In thelogin, the metaphors might survive an alteration; we could always
elinmininate the results of nroff and make thelines longer
but fewer.
however, strictly for informational content, i think we did a darn
good job. And i will say again, for this conference; you could grow
from the login, sted the reverse.
|
davel
|
|
response 28 of 280:
|
Feb 12 12:08 UTC 1996 |
Re 25: so it's a matter of writing a pager. In the case of one constant
login screen which one finds objectionable, something like an awk program
shouldn't be too hard to manage.
|
steve
|
|
response 29 of 280:
|
Feb 12 21:24 UTC 1996 |
Except that the different conferences have different login/logout
banners. I don't see a foolproof solution to getting around an
obnoxious banner.
|
steve
|
|
response 30 of 280:
|
Feb 13 15:53 UTC 1996 |
How long are you going to be in "sponge" mode, TS and Nephi?
How many people have sent you supporting mail on this? I ask,
because I see a distinct downturn in activity here over the last
several days, and I am afraid that there are people who are unhappy
enough with things that they've elected to simply not show up and
respond.
That bothers me, a lot.
|
carson
|
|
response 31 of 280:
|
Feb 13 16:12 UTC 1996 |
There's a thought.
|
steve
|
|
response 32 of 280:
|
Feb 14 16:26 UTC 1996 |
Ahem.
How long are you going to be in "sponge" mode, TS and Nephi?
|
gregc
|
|
response 33 of 280:
|
Feb 15 10:37 UTC 1996 |
I've been out of coop for awhile because of life/illness/work/etc.
My $.02 on this issue: First off, I entirely agree with remmers that
waayyy too much time/text/resources/angst have been wasted on this issue.
Second, TS, in response #16 you stated:
" nephi andi *have* received some thoughtful email (imo) from some
quarters with thoughtful suggestions instead of open flames. Those
thoughts are being taken into careful consideration."
The implications are that things said in this conference are just simply
"open flames" and they are *not* "being taken into careful consideration."
I agree with others opinion here. I think you and nephi have an over-inflated
idea of what the job of FW for coop should be. Your jobs should be as
janitors, not policy setters. As near as I can tell, most everyone has
said "take the message out of the login". Yet you havn't. Have you decided
that you "know what is best for us?" That's kind of surprising to hear
from you. You are always making big speechs about how evil "Big guvmint:
is, and yet you are sounding like "big government" in your handling of this.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 34 of 280:
|
Feb 15 12:04 UTC 1996 |
Then, I suppose, there is a "standard" for login screens. Where do we find
that so, in the future, those affected can comply?
|
scott
|
|
response 35 of 280:
|
Feb 15 12:06 UTC 1996 |
Why did we bother assigning anyone as fw if they are not supposed to do
anything? Probably would have been clearer to assign cfadm as fw.
|
carson
|
|
response 36 of 280:
|
Feb 15 12:30 UTC 1996 |
re #35: (it gives Grex that warm, fuzzy feeling of a human touch.)
|
popcorn
|
|
response 37 of 280:
|
Feb 15 14:13 UTC 1996 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 38 of 280:
|
Feb 15 14:13 UTC 1996 |
Arnold, here is the standard for login screens:
COOP
We discuss Grex here
fw: (whatshisnames)
Re #33: I'm surprised that you would condemn the whole of Grex
("waayyy too much time/text/resources/angst have been wasted").
|
gregc
|
|
response 39 of 280:
|
Feb 15 22:17 UTC 1996 |
Rane, I think you misunderstand, I wasn't condeming anybody. Like the
proverbial molehill into a mountain, I think this thing is trivial and
shouldn;t have gone on to the extent that it has.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 40 of 280:
|
Feb 16 07:17 UTC 1996 |
(For the humor impaired.. ;->): I was implying that most of the discussions
on Grex are trivial and should not go on to the extent they do. Why not
this one?
|
adbarr
|
|
response 41 of 280:
|
Feb 16 12:39 UTC 1996 |
The login screen here was "bad" somehow. How? These folks offered to take time
and effort to monitor and guide the conference. I see them doing their best.
They are both much more experienced that I, and most of us, and past postings
show (to me) they have Grex's interests at heart -- though I might clash and
disagree with either at times, so can someone tell me what went wrong here?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 42 of 280:
|
Feb 16 16:27 UTC 1996 |
What went wrong was the the draft (I hope) login screen was somewhat
pompous, pedantic and overblown, and therefore ripe for pricking. I agree
with your judgements of the FWs, but even highly qualified FWs can
misjudge their audience.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 43 of 280:
|
Feb 16 18:07 UTC 1996 |
Perhaps the audience should prick its own inflationary membrane at times.
Good explantion, rcurl. Thanks. Sometimes, frankly, I think people who are
really sincere in their efforts are taken as pompous or even corny. But these
folks have a track record of sincere work here. I think the criticisms are
not fully justified and somewhat heavy handed. <abarr stands defiantly atop
the Grexbunker!>
|
steve
|
|
response 44 of 280:
|
Feb 16 18:19 UTC 1996 |
Arnold, what I see as "bad" about the login screen is one thing,
really: how often it's crammed down peoples screens.
The text isn't bad, though I would have probably made it shorter,
but the fact that it gets displayed *every* time you go into it is
counterproductive. Greg's comments about the irony of TS's anti-
goverment attitude coupled with this you-must-read-it message isn't
lost on me, and in fact I mentioned that in my mail to them on this
issue.
If it were a bulletin, then it could be touched every week or so,
thus making people see it just once 'till the next time the file was
updated. That to me is a reasonable compromise, I think, and won't
bug the *(&%* out of people.
There is another consideration, that being the technical fact that
Grex is *slow* over the net. That message can take painfully long to
traverse through our link, and is just another aggravation (little, to
be sure) that people have to deal with. Over time that adds up.
|
tsty
|
|
response 45 of 280:
|
Feb 16 23:18 UTC 1996 |
Even the direct provocation of #33 won't generate a DNA-exchange contest
with the author.
The quote stands and can be parsed by the normal standards of grammar.
Without criticism, this edition of coop was brought on line a bit more quickly
than either of us anticipated.
However, it was structurally ready and has prospered regardless. Our
original intention was to have a few respected individuals join newcoop
and email commentary for consideration. That plan was pre-empted but I
will state that those from whom we were going to solicit email commentary
have done so already. Thankxx.
When, or if, we institute changes, it will be on the basis of our best
judgement and the opinions and rationale of the email.
We do thank and appreciate those who recognized that sincere effort was
already in evidence when this became coop instead of newcoop.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 46 of 280:
|
Feb 17 00:54 UTC 1996 |
<adbarr switches to "safety" on his "tactical". STeve thanks for that. I just
want to cool this off a little. Tsty - nephi -- Hey! You got people thinking,
or at least, you got the synapses heated up. Good work.
|
remmers
|
|
response 47 of 280:
|
Feb 17 05:17 UTC 1996 |
Hmm... 'Scuse me naivete or ignorance or whatever, but I thought
the coop business was supposed to be done in the open, not by a
select few behind the scenes in email.
|
steve
|
|
response 48 of 280:
|
Feb 17 06:19 UTC 1996 |
TS, what are you saying? Perhaps its just too late in my day
to be reading things like this but I don't understand what you're
saying. You aren't chaning the login screen, or you might be?
|
gregc
|
|
response 49 of 280:
|
Feb 17 08:43 UTC 1996 |
TS, in response #45 you stated:
"Our original intention was to have a few respected individuals join
newcoop and email commentary for consideration. That plan was pre-empted
but I will state that those from whom we were going to solicit email
commentary have done so already. Thankxx.
When, or if, we institute changes, it will be on the basis of our best
judgement and the opinions and rationale of the email."
Ok, fine. I have no problems with you asking a few people to beta-test
the newcoop. No problem. But are you implying that only those people's
opinion on how coop is set up have any worth, and the rest of our opinion's
are meaningless? And since when is coop policy decided by a few select
individuals? And even in the extremely unlikely event it was, where do
you think you obtained the right to do the selecting of whom those
individuals are?
|