|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 79 responses total. |
srw
|
|
response 50 of 79:
| 
Oct 19 07:10 UTC 1996 |
It may have been said a zillion times, but I don't think it is true.
We could drop the membership requirement for telnet, and I don't think it
would add very much bandwidth. Certainly less than the 6 or 7 Megabytes per
day we spend on web pages.
I think it is a carrot which encourages people to contribute to Grex, and I
don't think it is evil, nor has it had any corrupting effects on the system.
I freely admit to not "getting it", Mary.
I am a longtime supporter of free email, and that won't change.
I mostly agree with Jan, and I think Mary's warnings bear attention, but I
think they are overstated. Jan doesn't want to cut off *any* current services,
and that is nice and idealistic. However, I don't see the need to
"grandfather in" web pages.
Personal web pages are definitely a drag on the link.
Personal web pages offer no real connection to conferencing or
community, in my opinion. I don't think that they even attract people
the way mail does. I realy think thay are peripheral to Grex's function.
If it could be shown that people attracted to Grex for its free web sites
(and there are plenty of these people today) actually wind up using Grex's
conferencing system, I would back down on this, and recognize free web
pages as an asset, like free e-mail.
Some have proposed that if a resource is to be limited it should be cut off
for all. This would mean removing all personal web page service. I think this
would foolishly discard the oppportunity to drum up wider support for Grex.
We would perhaps lose 90% of our personal websites if we
made it a member perq, but we could also get more memberships, which spreads
out the support for Grex. All attempts to make more things free narrow the
support.
What would happen to those who could not afford it? They would be denied the
ability to have their own web sites here. Is this a shameful inequity?
I can certainly continue on with our current policy. I just think it is
reasonable to look for creative ways to encourage people to support us,
without restricting basic services in any way.
|
dang
|
|
response 51 of 79:
|
Oct 20 22:16 UTC 1996 |
Question: Do we *want* to encourage a group of voting members who never
conference? Do we *want* people who's only connection to the community of
grex is a web page or an email site? I don't think we do. Grex has remained
open and free because the people who make the decisions are all conferencers
who like grex being open and free. If the voters are people who are paying
for their web pages, they will vote to kinck off everyone who doesn't pay,
so that thier web pages will load faster. (I would, if I hadn't been
conferencing here for years.) I don't think we want to place the future of
grex in the hands of people who only became members for email or web pages.
Disclaimer: I'm not saying everyone who only does email or has web pages is
like this. But a lot of them are. I was once apon a time.
|
mta
|
|
response 52 of 79:
|
Oct 21 02:55 UTC 1996 |
And that is a rephrase of Mary's excellent point that it might be a good idea
to look at how we select for members.
It may sound elitist, but I think that realistically speaking, any plan to
trawl for new members is a selective thing -- and if you want salmon, you
don't trawl where the tuna run. If you want GREX members who support what
GREX is now, we should select methods for recruiting that emphasize first,
people who have some idea what GREX is now.
(Lord, that statement is a grammatical nightmare. Sorry.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 53 of 79:
|
Oct 21 06:40 UTC 1996 |
I think I'll restate my point (agreeing with what srw said in #50), that
we can restrict web pages to members without tying it to "payment", by
viewing web ages as a service providing information to the public about
the members that support and manage the organizations (but voluntarily).
Put another way, web pages for members is not a service provided the
members, but rather a "membership list" provided to the public. They could
actually have come about this way, except for this tendency to always
think of things members "can do" here as perqs, rather than as public
services. For example, when web pages first became possible, the first
thought about them could have been "what an excellent opportunity to
inform the public about the people that support Grex (if they are willing
to be given a web page)".
|
adbarr
|
|
response 54 of 79:
|
Oct 21 11:36 UTC 1996 |
I wonder what would happen if Grex charged $5.00 per year for email?
|
robh
|
|
response 55 of 79:
|
Oct 21 12:10 UTC 1996 |
I expect the size of the Co-op conference would quadruple. >8)
|
danr
|
|
response 56 of 79:
|
Oct 22 02:02 UTC 1996 |
You know, I used to think that "real" Grexers were the ones who participated
in the conferences. I'm not so sure of that anymore. In fact, I'd say that
most Grexers don't conference. So, if wer're going to trawl for conferencers,
we're really limiting the number of people that we're trying to convert into
members. Not only that, it's not the conferencers that are putting the
heaviest load on the system.
Grex is what the users make of it, and I'd say conferencing is just a small
part of it. It may be what *we* think Grex is, but not what the majority of
users think it is.
|
tsty
|
|
response 57 of 79:
|
Oct 22 03:21 UTC 1996 |
as meg said when the first 2400 baud connection directly to the
internet was confirmed, "this is gonna change the entire
character of grex."
|
ajax
|
|
response 58 of 79:
|
Oct 22 04:33 UTC 1996 |
Re 56, among Grex members, conferencing is the most common activity
on Grex, according to the member survey of a few months ago. Among
Grex users as a whole, I'm pretty sure conferencing ranks below e-mail,
multi-user chats, and one-to-one chats.
|
chelsea
|
|
response 59 of 79:
|
Oct 22 13:24 UTC 1996 |
I have uploaded three files which document the evolution of Grex's
policy to restrict certain services to members only. They are
all somewhat lengthy items, entered in Co-op, in 1994. Now,
I'm not suggesting that anything done by the membership in 1994
should forever seal how things are done. But I am suggesting that
those who think they recall why policy developed as it did
re-read these items because it would be a bad idea to build
on "mis-rememberings".
The first item was entered in February of 1994, after a three
month Internet trial period had ended. It is a discussion
on whether the trial period's members-only restriction should
continue. The file is at: !cat /u/chelsea/discuss.txt | more
The second item is the discussion preceding the first membership
vote in which the majority decided in favor of continuing
to allow Internet access for members only.
The file is at: !cat /u/chelsea/vote1.txt | more
The third item is the discussion preceding the second membership
vote where the Internet access policy was further refined.
That file is at: !cat /u/chelsea/vote2.txt | more
|
rcurl
|
|
response 60 of 79:
|
Oct 22 15:24 UTC 1996 |
Re #56: if Grex is what the users make of it, then it will become a cheap ISP
very quickly. If, on the other hand, it is believed to have a "mission", as
expressed in bylaws and tradition, it will not become "what users make of it",
but rather what those sufficiently interested in becoming members make of it.
|
dang
|
|
response 61 of 79:
|
Oct 22 16:42 UTC 1996 |
Just a thought: If grex becomes a cheap ISP, what will happen to the staff?
I wouldn't donate my time to a cheap ISP, but I will and do donate my time
to Grex as I seee it now.
|
mta
|
|
response 62 of 79:
|
Oct 22 18:32 UTC 1996 |
In answer to dang's question, I think if GREX became a cheap ISP, it would
find that it had a lot of staff positions open.
|
e4808mc
|
|
response 63 of 79:
|
Oct 22 23:20 UTC 1996 |
*If Grex is what the users make of it* Grex is not a user run organization,
Grex is a *member* run organization. Coops are enterprises designed to serve
the needs of their members. Many coops also offer goods/services to
non-members, but only to the extent that those offerings match the
organizational vision (or mission as rcurl called it).
In the business arena, a product (goods or services) is only a product if
their are sufficient numbers of buyers willing to pay the cost of the product.
It is a common cause of small business bankruptsy for a business owner to have
a wonderful "product" that very few people are willing to pay for.
(Thinking back, even large businesses are prone to this: Edsel, New Coke,
etc).
If our organizational mission results in a product that our users are not
willing to pay for, but our *members* are, then let us serve our member's
needs, and let the users find another business that provides the product they
are looking for at a price they are willing to pay.
If we can meet our members' needs and also provide users with products they
are looking for at an acceptable cost to the organization (and all of our
"free" services have some cost to the organization), then fine.
As best I can glean, the original vision of Grex was an inexpensive, local
access to computer technology, and the Internet, that helped build a sense
of comunity among the members especially, with outreach or missionary efforts
to those who were only looking for technology.
This seems like a noble effort, to which people (yea staff :-) ) are willing
to donate time, equipment and money. I doubt those people are willing to drop
the community part of the effort and just donate time to people looking for
cheap technology.
(If so, I've got lots of projects they can donate to: guaranteed no income
and no psychological rewards either).
Anyway, to end this incredible long rant, I think Grex should stay focused
on meeting member's needs primarily, and donating goods/services in very
specific missionary activities that further our organizational vision.
|
mdw
|
|
response 64 of 79:
|
Oct 23 03:29 UTC 1996 |
I disagree.
Grex is "member-run", but *for the benefit of the public*, ie, any user,
paying or not. If we shut out or limit free users as Wicked, Twisted
Mind suggests, then we wind up being just another pay-for-use system,
just another commercial ISP. Actually, we wind up being nothing,
because grex's current operating budget of $10,000/yr isn't nearly
enough to even fund *one* full-time person, and the investment required
to ramp operations up enough to be self-sustaining just aren't in the
bank. Half-way measures don't make sense either--just look at m-net.
Grex fills a distinctly *different* niche than a commercial ISP, and it
survives because there are operational advantages in that niche. For
instance, we have a very strong technical staff, because strange as it
may seem, there *are* crazy people who are willing to donate time and
resources to an organization that provides free access. We are able to
do ``nifty'' things because we can measure results by attributes such as
whether people like them, instead of whether they're cost effective.
Because our overhead is so modest, we are able to be self-sustaining
even with a relatively modest membership and downright *cheap* rates.
The reason to be here shouldn't be e-mail, web access, or telnet,
because there are other organizations that provide far better
implementations of all those facilities than we can ever *hope* to
provide. The reason people should be here is because of the people, and
the conferencing. Having said that, however, that does not mean that
the other things we provide here are not important. Grex can, and
should be, many different things to different people, because not
everyone comes out of the same cookie cutter. Party has received a hard
knock from some people here, but I think that's a perfectly legitimate
use of grex here, one we should feel proud of, and one that we should
encourage, within limits. I also think that fears that it will take
over grex are dated, at this point - with irc & web chat sites all over,
the dangers of grex being swamped are increasingly remote. We also
provide compiler access and a general Unix account. This is an unusual
thing, especially on free-nets. It's difficult to measure the value of
doing this, but it's something else we can do that makes us "slightly
different", and makes us interesting to people who would not otherwise
be attracted to here.
|
scg
|
|
response 65 of 79:
|
Oct 23 03:49 UTC 1996 |
Which is why Grex is not a coop.
|
mta
|
|
response 66 of 79:
|
Oct 23 04:01 UTC 1996 |
It sounds as though our offering compiler access and general UNIX access may
lead directly to us having such a talented staff. To some extent we can grow
out own. ;)
|
davel
|
|
response 67 of 79:
|
Oct 23 11:53 UTC 1996 |
What Marcus said.
We're "member-run" in terms of governance, but to a considerable degree we
have definitely been *user*-run, I'd say. FWs are the most obvious example,
but lots of things that qualify as "helping run the system" are done by users
who don't happen to be members.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 68 of 79:
|
Oct 23 15:02 UTC 1996 |
That is true, but that is made possible by the members.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 69 of 79:
|
Oct 23 15:22 UTC 1996 |
This response has been erased.
|
mdw
|
|
response 70 of 79:
|
Oct 31 11:45 UTC 1996 |
Rane is quite right that it is made possible by the members. I just saw
a serious proposal on m-net to restrict guest access to *just* lynx - no
shell or other access. There is nothing written that *requires* that
members "really" run grex for the benefit of the users. Grex members
could, in theory, vote and implement m-net's proposal here. But I would
argue that this would not really be in grex's best interest.
What this all means it that we have a tradition, and a responsibility to
the system, as members, to always keep the interests of users foremost
as we vote, and to resist the perfectly natural tendency in all of us to
be selfish.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 71 of 79:
|
Oct 31 11:52 UTC 1996 |
What do you expect if we truly have oceanic orgigins?
|
mta
|
|
response 72 of 79:
|
Nov 1 00:44 UTC 1996 |
ouch.
that was *selfish* not shellfish.
|
e4808mc
|
|
response 73 of 79:
|
Nov 1 01:17 UTC 1996 |
Or was it *sellfish*? ;-)
|
pfv
|
|
response 74 of 79:
|
Nov 1 18:17 UTC 1996 |
"crawfish"?
"jellyfish"?
|
