response 250 of 281:

Dec 27 15:49 UTC 1995

For those of us in this conference who are humor impaired, #249 is a joke,
or so I'm told. Do not be alarmed!

response 252 of 281:

Dec 28 04:36 UTC 1995

                                            [gasbag alert: 133 lines of text]

   I'm back.  For once I'm able to actually come back to an item and make
a response at the time I'd said I would.

   This is for Arnold, who asked in #244 why Grex felt threatened by
structure, and what he might be supporting if he chooses to join.

   I can't speak for all the founders who started Grex, nor the board
or staff.  But I think the three groups I mentioned have their various
factions that might add to what I'm saying here.  But I'm not trying to
put words in anyones mouths--they'd get spit back at me with alarming
velocity.

   Grex isn't "threatened" by structure; the technical people who work
with the hardware and software *thrive* on structure, order.  There is
nothing worse than a large software project with little structure to it.
Many of the staff have I think, been in situations where just that
happened--thats a nightmare.
   Structure isn't bad, but "government" can be.  I use this word in a
somewhat unconventional sense, but I think it works: government being
the systems that people create to deal with events and handle procedures.
This can be in a stamp club handling dues all the way to the US Federal
Government.
   Everything that is at all complex has some amount of government
within it.  People who make a reasonable amount of money do, too, simply
because they have to come to a reckoning once a year with another
government or two.  Grex is certainly complex enough to need some amount
of government: we have bills to pay, we have monies to accept, we have
a system to administer.  These are all forms of government, one way or
another.  You can't make a system without some amount of it.
   But the "amount" is the key here.  Although you need some structure
to make a system work, just as land based creatures need an indo- or
exo-skeleton, you can create a system whereby the procedure to allow
for the daily functioning of the organization exceeds the complexity
of the intent of the organization.  I think that the good people over
ar Arbornet are in this situation now.
   It's an easy thing to get trapped in--I know, because I've blundered
into helping create an endless system of governemnt a couple of times
now, and I've found out something the hard way: after a point, you
spend so much time dealing with the proceduralistic things that you're
spending more time do *that*, than what it was you started doing in the
first place.
   Humans tend to form into little clumps, and most humans tend to like
having something of a pecking order in thier society so as to be able
to relate to others in the group within some type of framework.  These
clumps of people also tend to become specialized, because freeing up
some people for specific tasks makes it possible to more efficiently
deal with things--not everyone wanted to hunt, so freeing up those
who could better do other things helped us all.  Thus civilization
started.  Now today, in this little clump of humans called Grex, we
have specialization, namely board folk, staff folk, and the like.
In order to be able to better deal with events that affect us, we
have a board of directors who oversee the highest level functions
of the group, but do the smallest actual work, the staff who deal
in lower-level day-to-day functions that keep the system running, and
then the membership that has the power to affect both high- and low-level
things by the power of its vote.  The way that these groups deal with
things is a form of government.  For the staff, the staff conference,
the only closed conference on the system is what I would consider
the primary system.  They have items where they inform other staff
what they have recently done on the system; there are items to
discuss general problems or security problems, and so on.  For staff,
the coordination of technical things is vital becuase if two staff
go off and do things at cross purposes to each other, one might wipe
out the efforts of the other, making a nusience to possibly creating
some new and disgusting security hole.  Neither are good, so they
have procudures in place to make it easier to let others know what is
going on, to avoid this sort of problem.  For the board, there is the
system of handling money, procedures for meetings, planing for the
future, and so on.
   For Grex, the government for staff has basically meant the staff
conference, where people could inform others what they've done, and
more recently staff meetings once a month where about half the staff
has met to talk about various technical aspects of the system.  What
wasn't formally decided was what people would do, and if there was a
heirarchy in staff.  To this day there is not a formal system for
determing who does what.  There has only been the rather informal
systems I've mentioned, which 11 root-staff have used *with excellent
results*.  I can say that I've been in job settings where much much
more formal systems for doing system administration activities has
resulted in *many* more screwups and problems than Grex's all volunteer
systems staff has had.  More procedure doesn't nessessiarily equate
with anything other than increased paperwork, and frequently causes
problems.  For the Grex board this lack of proceduralism has most
vividly been a deliberate lack of the adoption of RRO; there are
probably others, but thats what comes to mind now, and what I've
heard of being unusal about us when others have seen our meetings
and made comments about them.
   For some number of the founders, I think there was a philosophical
ideal that we had (but didn't really talk about much, I don't think)
that basically said: if we really need something for the structure
of the system, let's add it.  If it isn't needed, then we won't add it.

   ...And thats really the crux of the whole discussion here.  Do you
*need* RRO to conduct business?  I don't think so.  Grex is ample
evidence of an organization that while small, has been able to stick
to its goals rather well, while being able to avoid the "political"
events that usually clog up organizations.  Obviously, this was in
some part due to the people involved at the start, but I think it was
something more, like how we chose to administer ourselves.  I think
that Cyberspace Communications has proven that informal methods of
governance can work.  Do work.  It takes effort though, in that people
have to be willing to talk to other people, to listen to others, and
to be able to come to a consensus on issues.  Back when the founders
were having weekely meetings about the creation of Grex, we used
several methods that Edwards Demming used in "Total Quality Management",
which in one sentance uses the scientific method in business settings.
Such a system of government is a rather different way of looking at
things and isn't so easily accepted by those who have always done things
in a particular way.  It works however, and the founders quite accidently
did many things that TQM teaches.

   In summary, the government that Grex has chosen for itself has
fit quite well up to now.  It has given us the ability to do work
while at the same time being loose enough so as to let people be
able to do things and not have to constantly think of the procedural
side of things.  So far this has worked wonderfully for Grex.  Can
it always work in the future?  Time will tell.  Certainly, if we had
1000 new users on system each day, and had an active userbase of 100,000
with a membersip of 5,000, there would have to be more procedures in
the system, to help keep up with the sheer amount of administration
that would be needed to keep up with such a system.  But until we get
to something considerably more huge than what we are now, I think the
current system of government works, and works quite well.


   The other question was "what am I supporting if I join?".  That
requires some thought.
   I'd say if you join you're supporting an amateur organization
that strives to provide a forum for the free exchange of ideas,
that is open to all, and dearly hopes that enough people will continue
to support Grex with memberships that it can continue to be the
open system it is today.

response 254 of 281:

Dec 29 15:43 UTC 1995

One thing I'd add.  STeve said the crux of the whole discussion here is
whether we **need** RRO to conduct business.  I mostly agree.  Rane is on
record (somewhere in all this mass of stuff) as saying, in so many words,
that it's impossible to conduct business in a businesslike way without a
written set of procedures.  He's also alleged various failures, on the part
of Grex's board, to conduct business properly, & some of those probably are
in fact such failures, I'd guess; but I question whether there is *any*
evidence that adopting RRO would prevent such.  Grex's method of doing
business stacks up pretty well against those of organizations I've seen
attempting to use RRO - in part because in such organizations the issue of
whether things are procedurally correct becomes a continual distractions.
When I (and others) make this point Rane essentially says that it needn't
and shouldn't be that way.  I doubt this, but it in fact *is* that way.
It's pretty unreasonable to keep imagining hypothetical worst-case scenarios
under the present system, and then to insist that only best-case scenarios
are relevant for considering RRO.

(Rane, I use you in this statement not to single you out, but because you're
the one who has said these particular things most clearly - and because the
last time I responded to things others had said in support of RRO you seemed
to think it was relevant that *you* hadn't said them.)

response 256 of 281:

Dec 30 10:32 UTC 1995

There is a simplified version of RRO, designed for organizations that
don't need the complexity of the full version.

response 258 of 281:

Dec 30 18:12 UTC 1995

Rane thinks we absolutely should not adopt RRO but not use them.  I see
no point myself in having procedural rules but not following them.  What
*is* the advantage, Arnold?

response 260 of 281:

Dec 30 21:30 UTC 1995

 re #258 (and some earlier posts):
IMO, the advantage Arnold, Rane and some others point out is to have the rules
adopted _before they need to be called upon_.  The idea being, once a problem
does arise, you don't have to deal with the devisive back-and-forth of which
rules to adopt and how to interpret them (although, interpretation is still
an issue).  OTOH, I don't think grex _needs_ RRO at this time, and the
organizational method(s) described up there are fine for the purpose.  I do,
however, have a few concerns which, as correctly stated, are not _necessarily_
addressed by adopting RRO.

First, I assume, and would strive to assure, that all points of view receive
a fair hearing/airing.  Also, that all issues so brought up are entitled to
discussion/debate and not squashed.  This seems to be the case...I'm just
making the point this assurance needs the protection of the "powers that be"
and/or be subject to reprisal by the membership/etc.

Second, I think it is _imperitive_ to have actions/motions well thought out
and written down before voting occurs, or before a concensus is decided. 
There may be some confusion between what two or more people _think_ each has
said, and writing it down merely formalizes the result...not the process.

Third, the actions taken (motions passed) need to be recorded and announced.
This becomes the official/legal diary of the organization, however informally
the decisiona are arrived upon.

Fourth, some items are too important for simple informal procedure.  The
founders and/or members and/or BoD have decided (or will decide) that such
things as mega-financial expenditures, gross changes in operating conditions,
gross changes in governing/organizational conditions, etc, should require
extra discussion/debate or a wider vote than merely the BoD.  I'm sure there
are already opportunities for these kinds of actions in place.

Finally, it needs to be assured that the above thoughts are exercised with
"due process", in an unbiased way for all who might become involved, and with
consistency from issue to issue.  It is not at all acceptible (to me) to
re-invent-the-wheel every time a "new" problem is encountered.  The BoD needs
to make its decisions with an eye on similar issues arising in the future and
take care not to tie the hands of future BoD's, nor leave future BoD's out
in the cold with no guidance from the organizations history.

IMHO, simplified and informal following of procedures such as RRO, _with the
citation of the formal rules to be used in case of 'abuse' or serious
objections to conduct of business_, can accomplish all of these goals.  It
seems, for the most part, that grexers have found their own way to accomplish
the same thing and I have no axe to grind in that regard.  Just keep an eye
on the future   ;-)

response 262 of 281:

Dec 31 19:04 UTC 1995

Do I understand that Grex follows the precepts of RRO but just refuses to
admit the fact? ;-)

response 264 of 281:

Dec 31 21:17 UTC 1995

Grex follows RRCS? Perhaps some who expect RRO will just be moderately amused,
instead of bitterly disappointed? <adbarr thinks Grex does just fine, but is
always interested in new (scary) ideas.> Questioning the established order
is not equivalent to attacking the good work and people that have contributed
so much to date. I hope that is understood. Now here at HVCN, we have reached
perfection! <sure!> ;-)

response 266 of 281:

Jan 1 20:02 UTC 1996

That's fine, they can have our spares.  We won't miss them.  ;)

response 268 of 281:

Jan 1 21:28 UTC 1996

        The facts stand clear- Grex's Guidelines of Order (hereafter
called GGO) are, for our situation far superior to Robert's Rules.
GGO, for definition sake, are the practices we currently use, and use well.

response 270 of 281:

Jan 2 17:17 UTC 1996

That, or just dive in and start talking.  The goal here is for Grex to be
flexible, where lots of different styles of communication are okay.

response 272 of 281:

Jan 2 19:46 UTC 1996

Re #268
I think we should use  Grex's Intuitive Guidelines of Order.

Or GIGO for short.

response 274 of 281:

Jan 3 01:09 UTC 1996

I'll buy that.