|
Grex > Coop6 > #58: New Nominations for the 1995-96 board | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 80 responses total. |
popcorn
|
|
response 50 of 80:
| 
Jan 24 01:59 UTC 1995 |
And c) grex's modems not working? (Or is that covered under a)?)
|
steve
|
|
response 51 of 80:
|
Jan 24 02:16 UTC 1995 |
I think thats a case of a). But that only happened when we couldn't
get back to CE to turn the modei back on, which is now a thing of the
past...
|
scg
|
|
response 52 of 80:
|
Jan 24 02:52 UTC 1995 |
That sounds like a good definition of downtime, considering the number of
members who come in over the link.
|
remmers
|
|
response 53 of 80:
|
Jan 24 12:20 UTC 1995 |
I think it's reasonable to count link downtime as grex downtime --
in fact, I proposed doing that in the December election, although
it turned out not to apply.
So was the link down for 24 hours or more?
|
steve
|
|
response 54 of 80:
|
Jan 24 19:42 UTC 1995 |
Actually, I think it was closer to about 22 hours of downtime
and maybe a little less. Grex came up Sunday night about 8:15pm,
so if it was as early as 10:15pm Saturday night thats 22 hours.
|
remmers
|
|
response 55 of 80:
|
Jan 24 20:38 UTC 1995 |
Then I think we should follow the letter of the bylaws and not
extend the voting period.
|
scg
|
|
response 56 of 80:
|
Jan 24 22:50 UTC 1995 |
The modems were down sometime before the link went down, but I'm not sure
how much space there was inbetween. Do we count modem downtime as link
downtime?
|
steve
|
|
response 57 of 80:
|
Jan 25 02:15 UTC 1995 |
The modei wern't down on Saturday. The modei were down on
Thursday night / Friday morning. It was the links turn to crap
out the next day. ;-)
moral: problems, like matter cannot be created or destroyed.
They may only be moved about from piece of equipment, to piece
of equipment.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 58 of 80:
|
Jan 25 07:02 UTC 1995 |
I think the fair interpretation is that "downtime" is when either]
connect route (and of course both) is down, as some members cannot vote
during that time.
|
lilmo
|
|
response 59 of 80:
|
Jan 25 23:06 UTC 1995 |
Clarification: for a delay, is it required to have 24+ hours of CONSECUTIVE
downtime, or TOTAL ?
|
steve
|
|
response 60 of 80:
|
Jan 26 00:33 UTC 1995 |
As I understand it, that would be a 24 hour period, so its consecutive.
|
nephi
|
|
response 61 of 80:
|
Feb 9 08:15 UTC 1995 |
It seems to me to be better for it to be cumulative. Imagine the link
going down for 22 hours every day. No one could vote, but none of the
downtime would count and the election would not be extended.
|
carson
|
|
response 62 of 80:
|
Feb 9 20:23 UTC 1995 |
I think we're supposed to trust not only ourselves but other users
and "people of power" to not do such a thing. I know that I'd trust
those who could do such a thing now to not do so.
|
nephi
|
|
response 63 of 80:
|
Feb 10 09:09 UTC 1995 |
Oh, I definitely trust them! It just seems better to count it cumulatively.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 64 of 80:
|
Feb 10 14:15 UTC 1995 |
I agree that it makes sense to count downtime cumulatively and not
separately.
|
ajax
|
|
response 65 of 80:
|
Feb 10 17:40 UTC 1995 |
I think it makes sense, but it's more effort to track. I'd be more worried
if voting periods were shorter than two weeks; that helps mitigate downtime.
I also wondered if "perceived" downtime should be counted: when a modem is
ringing open a lot, or if a single modem answers and doesn't do anything,
callers might assume Grex is down...but that's *really* impossible to track.
|
mwarner
|
|
response 66 of 80:
|
Feb 11 01:46 UTC 1995 |
Deciding if a system is "down" could be a difficult exercise if you presume
a certain amount of guaranteed time when the system will not be available.
I wouldn't put grex in the category where a "perfect" uptime performance
would mean 7 days 24 hours per day each week of uninterrupted access.
That's not really possible, so what is the norm?
|
lilmo
|
|
response 67 of 80:
|
Feb 11 21:10 UTC 1995 |
How about giving the board the power to extend the election "when
multiple periods of significantly reduced access to Grex make that
a reasonable step" and rely upon the board's discretion?
|
ajax
|
|
response 68 of 80:
|
Feb 12 04:23 UTC 1995 |
That doesn't sound bad. If the board were horrendously corrupt, it could
indefinitely postpone votes it didn't want settled, but it's not. :)
|
lilmo
|
|
response 69 of 80:
|
Feb 14 18:24 UTC 1995 |
That's what I figured. Besides, who'd go to the trouble to corrupt them? :-)
|
popcorn
|
|
response 70 of 80:
|
Feb 15 04:36 UTC 1995 |
I'm corrupt! I'm corrupt! Send me money! <grin>
|
sidhe
|
|
response 71 of 80:
|
Feb 15 15:52 UTC 1995 |
Valerie! You're NOT supposed to let on! *Now* how amI supposed to
pay you off inconspicuously??
|
popcorn
|
|
response 72 of 80:
|
Feb 15 16:51 UTC 1995 |
It's OK -- I'll accept conspicuous payments too. :)
|
sidhe
|
|
response 73 of 80:
|
Feb 15 19:02 UTC 1995 |
Oh! All right, then..
|
danr
|
|
response 74 of 80:
|
Feb 15 21:17 UTC 1995 |
#70 is going into my "popcorn" file. :)
|