|
Grex > Coop8 > #65: Co-op Conference in search of co-fw candidates - one fw spot open. |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 97 responses total. |
carson
|
|
response 50 of 97:
| 
May 25 22:55 UTC 1996 |
(he's such a kidder, folks.) ;)
|
adbarr
|
|
response 51 of 97:
|
May 26 00:31 UTC 1996 |
I think I should decide.
|
aruba
|
|
response 52 of 97:
|
May 26 01:25 UTC 1996 |
I think Arnold should decide, too.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 53 of 97:
|
May 26 04:51 UTC 1996 |
I nominate scott to make the decisions - he doesn't have anything else to
do.. :).
|
carson
|
|
response 54 of 97:
|
May 26 05:25 UTC 1996 |
so we have to vote between scott and Arnold to see who makes the
decision? isn't that the sort of bureacracy we're trying to avoid? ;)
|
janc
|
|
response 55 of 97:
|
May 26 15:48 UTC 1996 |
I think the decision of how to decide is pretty clearly up to the board.
At the next meeting they should either (a) appoint someone (my preference)
or (b) declare an election.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 56 of 97:
|
May 26 19:44 UTC 1996 |
Actually, since there is no consensus on whether the board should
appoint, or whether to have elections, the obvious way to handle this is
how any other conf would handle it. Let Tsty choose from the interested
parties, and if anyone has a problem with Ts's choice, they can speak up.
In fact, Ts can fw by himself...dont really need two fw's.
|
janc
|
|
response 57 of 97:
|
May 27 02:43 UTC 1996 |
The board doesn't need a consensus, though they may like to have one.
|
remmers
|
|
response 58 of 97:
|
May 27 11:57 UTC 1996 |
Well, there's precedent for the board selecting the coop fw, since
that is what was done in nephi's case.
Re #56: Right, there's no inherent reason why coop has to have two
fw's. TS put out a call for volunteers himself, though, so he
appears to want a co-fw.
I've said this before but it seems to need repeating: Before the
board makes any decision on who will fw (or decides not to make
that decision), I'd like to see the issue of limited vs. indefinite
terms confronted and decided, somehow. An appointee deserves to
know the conditions of his or her appointment, and I think the
users deserve to know too.
|
carson
|
|
response 59 of 97:
|
May 28 17:59 UTC 1996 |
FWIW, I couldn't care less about the length of my appointment if appointed.
|
tsty
|
|
response 60 of 97:
|
May 29 07:01 UTC 1996 |
there are two precedents fr selecting a fw for coop (that i am aware of).
One, selecting tsty; chelsea asked me if i'd like to, i said 'yes'.
Two, selecting nephi; chelsea announced that she was resigning and
would anyne lik to fw with tsty? several loginids offerred, teh borg
selected nephi.
i am not of the opinion that tsty was chosen by a dice roll. neither
am i of the opinion that nephi was selected by a dice roll.
neither one of us was 'installed' (nor chelsea, for that matter) with
the pre-condition that a proscribed outcome was required. the only
proscription was that if content changes were to be made, that the
fws would have to agree to it together.
chelsea and i had a small number of minor squabbles; when we agreed,
chagnes were made, when we didn't, no chagnes were made. it's not a big
deal ppl, that model permitted a wide range of content with mutually
agreed limits on the extreme as the situation(s) indicated.
as i have stated earlier, self-enforcing the mutuality between chelsea
and tsty was a "good thing." i acknowledge again that i know i benefitted.
the sole exception to the 'mutuality' was anything that would appear
to jeoprodize the entity of grex, itself. if that ever were to occur
mutuality rather than the singularity would hold, revert or continue.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 61 of 97:
|
May 29 14:37 UTC 1996 |
This response has been erased.
|
janc
|
|
response 62 of 97:
|
May 29 15:22 UTC 1996 |
Lacking a consensus, it would probably be up to the board to decide that it
it tsty's decision. What fun.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 63 of 97:
|
May 29 15:45 UTC 1996 |
Ts should just fw by himself, or he can resign too and coop can go on
fw auto-pilot. Cfadmin can do any restarts if they become necessary and
very little linking is done here outside of anything relative to a
restart. Coop doesnt really need a fair-witness. Outside of restarts,
what have Ts and Nephi had to do anyway in the last year? Face it,
having active fw's in this conf has only *caused* problems. The FW
gets dragged into personal disputes between conf readers, which is not
anything that should ever happen, and gets raked over the coals because
of being too creative with the login screen, and .etc This is a
system conf, and it doesnt need users monitoring it and trying to
re-define it in any way.
In order to keep personalities and personal disputes to a minimum, I think
we shouldnt have fw's here and that the staff should take responsibility
for restarts and maintenance. Given the level of activity these days,
there may not need to be more than one restart a year. When one is
necessary, cfadmin can either do it themselves or designate someone to
have temporary fw powers for a few days so they can do it.
Where is it set in stone, that every single conf after it has been started
has to have an fw at all times. It is just not necessary with coop!
|
brighn
|
|
response 64 of 97:
|
May 29 16:44 UTC 1996 |
The same place it's set in stone, Richard, that you have to repeat
yourself ad nauseum. =} I think most people by now are fairly aware
of your stand on this issue.
It's TaSTYr's Choice...
|
kerouac
|
|
response 65 of 97:
|
May 29 21:19 UTC 1996 |
Well I dont wish to be appointed as co-fw, so unless there is an election
so I can run as the "abolitionist" candidate I am withdrawing from
consideration.
Absent an election, I'd say Selena should be fw. I'm fairly convinced
Selena can out-bitch anyone in Coop and won't take any shit. Mike (Nephi)
admitted he was too thin skinned to put up with the complaining. If we
have to have an fw, that person should be able to fw in the same way
anyone in any other conf does. Selena is an outsider and wouldnt cave
to board and staffand reader pressure. Even though I admittedly had
problems with her fw style in sexuality, it was really over how the conf
was defined and what its content should be.
This is a well defined conf, so what is really needed is a good hard headed
fw, if there has to be one, who wont take any crap. Besides, we still need
a new coop login screen and Selena does nice graphics.
|
brighn
|
|
response 66 of 97:
|
May 29 22:31 UTC 1996 |
(actually, the current Sex login is an ASCII pic i found on ISCA,
and the previous After Dark login was stolen as well... i'm not sure
if those are the graphics ker's referring to. i'm not sure selena's
logging on enoughanymore... her prime login time is 11 to 2 (at night),
and telnetd blocks usually keep her out, meanng she's spending most of
her online time on another bbs)
|
tsty
|
|
response 67 of 97:
|
May 29 23:54 UTC 1996 |
popcorn is correct in that i asked theo board to decide on the 2nd fw
from the volunteers available. can you envision this current fuss under
the circumstance that *i* had hand-picked the co-fw who also happened
to suggest and agree that the coop login screen ought to be more
than ascii hearts and flowers? that the coop login screen (not conference
content, mind you) would reflect a theoretical system truth?
as i wrote in an email reply recently, "if the login screen is a LIE i
would be much more inclined to make major alterations to it" or something
quite similar (emphasis in original). the key concept being that if the
screen reflects a FALSEHOOD it would stimulate a major rewrite.
there was no special reason for me to allow my self to be cast in the
role of 'kingmaker' when an alternative decision process was available
and also that there was nothing evident from the vollunteers that any
one of them had a peculiar agenda to impose once vested with power.
now, however, there is a list of ppl who want my fw-throat cut. screw that.
i think i'll take a good hard look at the fray and make a recommendation
to the board as to my preference for a coop fw and ask for the board's
concurrence, absent any peculiar agenda of the board's.
|
brighn
|
|
response 68 of 97:
|
May 30 03:33 UTC 1996 |
selena's access problems aside, btw, i do agree with richard
that my wife would make a good choice, being both hardnosed
and typically fair (if conservative about change)
|
selena
|
|
response 69 of 97:
|
May 30 04:27 UTC 1996 |
*Seeing at how well Richard's other ideas are being accepted around here, she's
not sure she wants him to be _for_ her*
Like I said before, I'd be glad to take the position. Or, if you
insist, have it bestowed on me. :)
Oh, and no, I'm not going to put a huge rose in the login screen.
Maybe hemlock though.. (Quoth Socrates, "I drank WHAT?") Seems more
appropriate.
|
janc
|
|
response 70 of 97:
|
May 30 04:44 UTC 1996 |
The board agreed tonight that it is tsty's choice.
|
carson
|
|
response 71 of 97:
|
May 31 11:51 UTC 1996 |
"And Grex inhaled."
|
yoyo
|
|
response 72 of 97:
|
Jun 2 13:45 UTC 1996 |
(I'm still for voting)
|
chelsea
|
|
response 73 of 97:
|
Jun 2 13:51 UTC 1996 |
Me too. And for fixed, non-contiguous terms.
|
brighn
|
|
response 74 of 97:
|
Jun 2 17:32 UTC 1996 |
I still think we're putting too much thought into this.
This is the FW of Coop, not the president of the Board
(do we have a President? I supopose we must, at least on paper...)
There are enough people around who have demonstrated an
ability not to abuse the power, and there really isn't
all that much power anyway.
I would favor Toasty just appointing somebody.
|