response 6 of 71:

Dec 27 17:20 UTC 2012

I seem to recall that I suggested a grex/mnet merger on mnet's 'grex'' 
conf two or three years ago, at a time when grew was down for a few 
weeks, and dave was posting (former owner of mnet at the time grew was 
formed)  He said something along the lines of "any such merger will 
happen over my dead body'  He still harbored much bitterness toward the 
group of users that left mnet after he bought it and apparently became 
dictatorial, to form grex all those years ago. I think I said it was 
silly for him to still be that bitter, but that only made more angry.  

I think its a good idea to merge.  I did then.  

response 8 of 71:

Dec 28 02:29 UTC 2012

I think it's a bad idea to merge.  I sure hope it doesn't happen.

response 10 of 71:

Dec 28 21:41 UTC 2012

The trouble with a merger, Dan, is that usually one culture or the other
will eventually get dropped.  This is because one organization owns both
and someone will suggest to remove the duplication to save money (it's
only common sense to do so, right?).

Want to guess which system gets dropped if Grex is taken over by
Arbornet?  And yes, I've seen this before in companies taken over by
merger.  It's no fun and the loss of a good culture to the owner of both
leaves a lot of people wondering why things turned out so badly.  It may
take a few years before it happens, but there's a very good chance it
will.  The reason Grex started was to control its own destiny. A merger
will destroy that.

response 12 of 71:

Dec 30 15:35 UTC 2012

I don't see it as a winner versus loser situation.  For one thing, 
Arbornet has nothing to do with the move.  They aren't doing a 
takeover of Grex.  They aren't doing anything, of any sort.  For 
another, I expect to negotiate a deal where Grex's Agora will remain.  
I don't see why the old conferences couldn't be moved over as well, 
and remain exactly as they are now.  The disk space requirements are 
insignificant.  It isn't 1985 any more, when every megabyte had to be 
fought over.

Did you notice the part where I explained that Arbornet has no Board?  
Grexers can keep your dark possibilities from happening.

I love Grex.  I have been here since it first opened to the public, 
and was at one of the planning meetings before it came online.  I 
spend much time on Grex, participating in serious discussions with 
other people I have known for a long time.  I don't want anything bad 
to happen to Grex.

I see the move as consolidating two groups which used to be vibrant, 
but which are both dying.  I see it as consolidating two organizations 
which have duplicate purposes and little energy.

I see it as shaking up things which have remained static for decades.  
When you want to make a change, sometimes it's not a bad thing to 
bring people together who don't talk and have them work on something 
together.  

I don't think Arbornet needs any more hardware.  There's not enough 
money, for either organization, to lose any sleep over.  This is 
anything but a grab for resources.  Arbornet doesn't need them.

I'm not trying to nitpick anything, Kent.  I hope it doesn't seem that 
way to you.  I have no intention of doing that.  I have great respect 
for you and am trying to pay attention to what you mean and what you 
want to say.  I think I am proposing a significant change, and I see 
your response as filtering out to this: "But then things might be 
different!"  (Please correct me if that is wrong.)  You wanted change 
a few years ago, but nothing happened.  Nothing at all.  Isn't that 
true?

I want your support.  I would like this to be a consensus move.  What 
would get you to join in?

Grex can keep sliding ever downward, until it goes off line someday 
and no one notices, or it can try something new and take a chance.  
This is something new.  It's not the only possibility that exists but 
it's the most realistic one.

response 14 of 71:

Dec 30 16:59 UTC 2012

Ken has done a whole lot to keep Grex alive over the past few years.  He 
is kinda the honey badger of making sure we survive.  When almost 
everyone else has lost enthusiasm for the cause - Ken is working, in the 
background, to make sure we're up.  If you get up in the morning and log 
into Grex you should thank Ken, cross & tonster for keeping the lights 
on.

M-net would despise having anything to do with Grex.  Really.  Almost to 
a fault everyone there would freak. I can't think of a good enough 
reason to force the two systems to have any joint responsibilities. I 
think jep has an alternate motivation here - to get people to run 
(against him) for the board seat.

If the time comes when we really can't support ourselves in terms of 
money or staff then I'd much rather we move to The Well where there is a 
large and thriving community of users.  The Well was recently purchased, 
from Salon, by a group of its users, many of whom have been there since 
it began in 1985.  We have much in common and I think we'd do as well 
there as anywhere.   

response 16 of 71:

Dec 31 20:29 UTC 2012

re resp:14: I wouldn't run just to get others to run.  I wouldn't say
I'll do something if I wasn't willing to do it.  I wouldn't do it if I 
didn't expect good results.

I would back off it if I became convinced it would be bad for Grex,
though I think that is unlikely to happen. I think it's best, that is
why I am pushing for it.  I don't have any other ideas in reserve that
would be better.  If I did, I would say so now.

response 18 of 71:

Jan 2 02:53 UTC 2013

re resp:17: I write more than I post.  I wrote responses to those things
but trimmed them out.

re resp:13: Grex was started because the founders didn't think M-Net
would last under Dave Parks' wildly erratic control.  Several of the
principal founders were M-Net's staff.  They gave up on Dave, and
committed to a new system controlled by a group instead of an
individual.  M-Net uses basically the same structure as Grex now.

I've said repeatedly that Grexers can become members of Arbornet and run
M-Net.  Control the Board, replace the staff, call the combined system
"Grex" and rename genera to "agora".  Break my heart and rename Arbornet
to "Cyberspace Communications".  No one is going to tell Grexers what to do.

Name one thing -- ONE -- that hasn't happened because I am running for
the Board of Cyberspace Communications.

I am known to just about everyone here.  I've been involved in M-Net for
a long time.  Now I'm involved here.  I don't think anyone would
consider me an obstacle or deadweight.  Grex needs people like me.

re resp:14: I know of only two people on M-Net who say they despise Grex
and Grexers, and one of them does so because of the other one.

The parts of your response that I didn't address previously, state that
I don't appreciate kentn.  That may be true; I have not tried to follow
a lot of the hidden operations that keep Grex running.  I'm aware of
those things (I did them for a few years for Arbornet) but have not paid
attention to them here.

I am of course glad Grex is still here, and grateful for all of the work
that is done to keep it going.

As a Board member I will expect to participate in that work.  I have a
record that you can review on that.  I was part of M-Net's Board for a
number of years.  I did quite a lot during that time.  I didn't just
throw out sweeping revisions and expect others to do the things that
were needed.

IN GENERAL: If anyone has concerns I haven't addressed, please let me
know about them.  I don't intend to ignore anyone.

response 20 of 71:

Jan 2 12:50 UTC 2013

Here's a question for ya. Given the fact (as you note) that Grex led the 
way as a group-run organization and Arbornet/M-Net played copycat, why 
wouldn't it make at least if not more sense for M-Net to disband and merge 
with Grex as it would for Grex to disband and merge with Arbornet?

(The question is largely rhetorical; I think the two organizations should 
remain independent.)

response 22 of 71:

Jan 2 22:05 UTC 2013

re resp:20: Arbornet was a member-run organization before Grex came into 
existence.  That stuff is a quibble, is it not?

I am not proposing that Grex disband.  I am proposing to pursue a merger.  
If there's no other way to do it, I've said I am willing for Cyberspace 
Communications to disband but that's not my first choice.

re resp:21: I haven't mentioned it on M-Net yet.  Feel free to do so any 
time if you want.  I'm not hiding anything, but just haven't gotten to the 
point where I'm ready to bring it up over there.

response 24 of 71:

Jan 3 00:07 UTC 2013

Okay.

response 26 of 71:

Jan 3 13:46 UTC 2013

This "merger" is very likely to be more work than just doing a better
job of running each organization.  It'll cost money to merge them,
I'm sure, which will hurt the assets needed to pay the bills into the
future.  It will take time from staff and Board. It will likely anger
some people enough to never come back.

Managing two organizations on one computer system isn't technically
a problem, but it is a problem for political reasons.  As I've noted
before, when organizations merge (or are forcefully combined), one of
the two original cultures tends to be pushed out or marginalized.  Which
one depends on who is in control after the "merger."

That, in turn leaves bad feelings (again), so you're less likely to get
participation from users of one of the original systems.

People will still not be motivated to help or participate and in fact
may be less likely to help because they harbor bad feelings about how
their original system has been treated in the "merger."

Nothing prevents a small group of unhappy users from starting another
system.  If that happens you're right back where you started.

My advice would be to focus on running each system better, but
separately.  Technical collaboration is still possible.