|
Grex > Coop > #278: Grex Town Hall -- How do we move forward? |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 357 responses total. |
kentn
|
|
response 58 of 357:
| 
Jun 21 17:17 UTC 2010 |
Re 57: yeah, that's on my list of ideas, too. Other similar systems
have lower rates, so to be competitive, we might want to lower the
cost. Then it wouldn't prove as much a barrier to those who feel
Grex has a huge pile of cash (which I would argue it doesn't unless
you feel like limping along like we are now, with few members, old
equipment, etc. in which case we have about a year or so to go).
|
slynne
|
|
response 59 of 357:
|
Jun 21 18:09 UTC 2010 |
I can't speak for others but one reason I havent sent in membership
money is that, due to bad financial habits on my part, I have been
paying off some debt. That process has left me with little extra money.
I have never really considered grex a charity so I don't include it in
my charitable giving budget.
I'll have all that debt paid off in a couple of months but I will still
be short of money because I have been putting off some house projects
that I will need to save up for. I am talking several thousand dollars
of house projects so my spending is going to be in reduced mode for a
few more years.
Basically my perception is that grex needs the money less than I do. But
if it were a smaller amount (say $30/year), it would be much easier for
me to just include it as an entertainment expense.
|
richard
|
|
response 60 of 357:
|
Jun 21 19:00 UTC 2010 |
re #52 see this is one of the problems. You suggest ideas here and
people get defensive. Grex has thousands of dollars in the bank and
yet was down for more than a month this past December because it took
that long to get the board to meet and authorize a hundred bucks to
purchase new hardware. It also didn't help that even though there
multiple staff members, there was only one apparently who knew the old
code well enough to be of any use fixing it. Poor STeve got bashed for
taking so long fixing things when other staff members didn't want to
touch Grex with a ten foot pole.
At least one board member (Cross) said he wanted Grex to go away.
So don't sit here and get defensive when you've got a Grex that is a
shell of what it once was and expect people to call those serving on
the staff saints. Hey I've volunteered places and I've never looked at
the fact that I was donating my own time as an excuse to be above all
criticism.
|
slynne
|
|
response 61 of 357:
|
Jun 21 20:30 UTC 2010 |
FWIW, the biggest reason I don't want to be on the board is the attitude
towards board members that guys like richard have. I just don't feel
like being anyone's punching bag.
|
mary
|
|
response 62 of 357:
|
Jun 21 20:37 UTC 2010 |
Yep.
|
richard
|
|
response 63 of 357:
|
Jun 21 20:41 UTC 2010 |
Then you shouldn't be on the board. Being a board member of any
organization means taking responsibility.
|
mary
|
|
response 64 of 357:
|
Jun 21 20:44 UTC 2010 |
(whoosh)
|
richard
|
|
response 65 of 357:
|
Jun 21 20:56 UTC 2010 |
In fact one of the reasons Grex is in the position it is now, is
because one board member, who was the treasurer, Aruba, became
inactive. Didn't say anything, didn't do anything. Dropped off the
radar for a year. No treasurer's reports, no notices about
memberships. How could grex maintain memberships when the treasurer
wasn't around to remind anyone what their status was?
So suddenly its the end of last year and Grex has no members. Pretty
lousy situation right? But if you'd listen to Mary and Slynne you'd
get the idea that those who use and value grex should shut up and not
say anything because those who didn't do what they said they'd do, what
the position asked to be done, should be above criticism because they
volunteered.
This is not the way it should work. We can't work together to make a
better Grex unless there's a common goal and those who accept
responsibilities and titles to represent the other users work towards
those goals. Sometimes I wonder if some serve on the board simply
because it looks good on a resume to say you were a sitting board
member of an organization.
|
slynne
|
|
response 66 of 357:
|
Jun 21 21:00 UTC 2010 |
When you are ready to serve on the board richard, people might take your
criticism more seriously. As it stands, it is doing more harm than good.
|
richard
|
|
response 67 of 357:
|
Jun 21 21:04 UTC 2010 |
So you are saying that the only people who can criticize board members
who are other board members. I use this board, I value this board.
Why that isn't enough to be able to offer my own two cents about whats
wrong here I don't get? Slynne you are soundly horribly elitist.
|
richard
|
|
response 68 of 357:
|
Jun 21 21:09 UTC 2010 |
Think about it. I've offered half a dozen suggestions here in this
item asking for such, to slynne's zero suggestions and mary's zero.
They aren't offering new ideas, they are criticizing those who dare to
say anything. This is another example of grex's board and staff being
way too insulated and cliquish, which has been an ongoing problem here
for years. This is why its the same people serving over and over. Why
should any well meaning outsiders want to serve on the board when all
you get is apathy and thin skin.
|
slynne
|
|
response 69 of 357:
|
Jun 21 21:11 UTC 2010 |
There is a difference between offering constructive ideas and berating
others for not doing the work you also are unwilling to do.
|
richard
|
|
response 70 of 357:
|
Jun 21 21:14 UTC 2010 |
I was assuming there were others who could do the work. I don't live
in Ann Arbor and I am not a CS tech person. One can criticize the
performance of invidividuals while not putting oneself up as the best
person to do the job. Hell I criticize the President sometimes and I
don't put myself up as the one who should step in and do the job.
|
richard
|
|
response 71 of 357:
|
Jun 21 21:33 UTC 2010 |
This item was entered to ask 'how do we move forward'? What can be
done to make Grex better? I answered the question. I gave material
suggestions such as adding use of graphics, but I also gave non-
material suggestions like addressing the apathy of the group which is
evidenced by the likewise apathy of board and staff.
slynne and mary offer NO new suggestions and attempt to swerve the
discussion away from what can be done to improve grex, by slamming me
for daring suggest that this growing apathy among some present/past
board/staff members may or may not have been part of what has led to
the current problem.
I'm trying to contribute. I'm offering honest answers to the question
the poster of this item asked. I don't know why mary and slynne even
posted in this item other than to slam me. If they don't have a clue
as to how to help grex at this point, or if they think participation on
board or staff should put them above criticism, they should admit it
and not serve on board or staff anymore. Posting here also simply to
slam one of the fewer users actively participating for daring to
suggest anything or criticize anything about grex is not constructive.
|
slynne
|
|
response 72 of 357:
|
Jun 21 21:54 UTC 2010 |
It would be different if there were a lot of people who wanted to be on
the board. People can be critical of the POTUS because even with all of
the criticism, there still are a lot of people willing to do the job.
That isn't the case here. Instead you are beating up the only people
willing to do *any* work because they arent willing to do enough work to
satisfy you. That makes people less likely to contribute.
I appreciate constructive posts. But being overly critical of the few
people willing to do any work is not constructive. It is especially
annoying when it comes from someone not willing to actually contribute
in any meaningful way. Not to say that your suggestions aren't
meaningful but trust me, grex has never been short of people willing to
tell everyone what should be done. grex is short of people willing to do
anything. You do not need to be in Ann Arbor to serve on the board. You
need time and a phone.
|
richard
|
|
response 73 of 357:
|
Jun 21 22:11 UTC 2010 |
I contribute in the ways that I can. I don't think I'd get elected to
the board even if I did run, nor do I possess the expertise in cs to
properly participate in many of the conversations. I also have
explicitly declined in the past to become a paying member because I
object to a financial transaction being a required criteria for
membership and to validation being required. One should be able to
earn a membership through conference participation. Activity is a
measurable value. I don't have anything against giving money, but there
was a time grex had many users from around the world here and some
could not pay money to exchange rate issues or could not or would not
validate themselves. Grex offered free anonymous access but you can't
be a member free and anonymously. I think the board's intransigence on
these matters has been issue. However now that membership rules have
been waived left and right I guess its not such an issue.
|
kentn
|
|
response 74 of 357:
|
Jun 21 23:11 UTC 2010 |
I wonder if all this animosity of discussion would happen if we all were
speaking face to face? Perhaps, but I kind of doubt it would go on for
long.
I certainly don't appreciate being called apathetic or inflexible.
It sure doesn't make me want to work harder or listen/read more
attentively. Our goal is generally to build a consensus before acting,
which is difficult to do at this time especially with objections to any
idea. The Board can pass policies without asking the users but we try
not to do that, so that's one reason for this item.
Things like major policy changes and strategy development often have no
obvious answer and require much discussion before the best course can
be chosen. So, the sooner we get to respectfully and constructively
discussing what we can do, the better.
I don't find some of the comments very constructive or very explanatory.
For example, what does a "make or break overhaul" mean here (resp 51)?
What is entailed? How much does it cost? Etc. Just saying we need an
overhaul isn't constructive. But what an overhaul means to you, with
examples, might be helpful and influence our decisions.
As to blaming people for what they didn't do last year, and 5 week
outages last year, move on. What's done is done and we've done what we
can do to not have it happen again at least in terms of outages. Yes
it's important to understand how we got where we are, but blame is not
constructive. You'll catch more flies with honey than you will with
vinegar. Let's move forward.
I do appreciate the ideas. It would be helpful if they did not often
appear as criticisms. Putting people on the defensive is not the best
way to get a fair evaluation of your ideas. And just tossing an idea
out there isn't the end of it because you need to potentially add to
what you said before people understand what you mean. You may even be
asked to compromise or modify your idea! But that's the risk you take
when you start talking.
|
tod
|
|
response 75 of 357:
|
Jun 21 23:19 UTC 2010 |
I'm sincere about the retro system approach. I'm all about text based
multi user systems.
I try to ignore the static in this item at the personal attacks level.
|
richard
|
|
response 76 of 357:
|
Jun 21 23:47 UTC 2010 |
re #74 thank you kent, I hear where you are coming from.
|
kentn
|
|
response 77 of 357:
|
Jun 22 03:47 UTC 2010 |
Ok, thanks, Richard.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 78 of 357:
|
Jun 22 04:56 UTC 2010 |
Re #69: "There is a difference between offering constructive ideas and
berating others for not doing the work you also are unwilling to do."
You mean, we shouldn't criticize our president and congresspeople unless we
are willing to do the jobs ourselves? Tell that to the Tea Party.....
I take the opposite position. It is the duty of members to criticize the
leaders of the organization for not doing their jobs to the best of
their abilities. It may not cause improvement, but not doing so will
definitely not cause improvements.
|
tonster
|
|
response 79 of 357:
|
Jun 22 05:20 UTC 2010 |
I'm really behind in this item, and catching up. This may get long.
resp:10: graphics are disabled? editing of responses is disabled? was
there a technical or some other reason for doing this? I'm not positive
about graphics, but certainly editing of responses requires no
recompilation of backtalk, it's a variable setting. That would take
almost nothing to make work; I consider it broken for it to be disabled.
resp:15: You can link to other sites easily. Just paste a URL, it'll get
clickified. HTML is also enabled, so you can create your own link if
necessary.
resp:18: Modified responses are clearly identified. see: m-net's
backtalk implementation.
resp:26: that's not technically possible with backtalk, and quite
frankly is lame.
|
richard
|
|
response 80 of 357:
|
Jun 22 05:22 UTC 2010 |
tonster I think graphics were left disabled when backtalk was installed
due to bandwidth concerns.
It would be nice to for instance be able to embed a link to some cool
youtube clip in an item rather than just pasting a url.
|
tonster
|
|
response 81 of 357:
|
Jun 22 05:28 UTC 2010 |
bandwidth concerns? was grex on dialup at the time or something? almost
all images I would imagine would be hosted offsite (like embedded links
to youtube videos), so that seems odd to me. I would certainly hope we
weren't concerned about that at provide.
|
mary
|
|
response 82 of 357:
|
Jun 22 10:56 UTC 2010 |
Our volunteer staff are not paid politicians. So, feel free to dump on
'em all you want but don't be surprised when they don't come back for
more. It's happened with staff and we're well on our way to having it
happen with the remainder of our volunteers.
To be frank - we've got our share of selfish people here with a sense of
entitlement. They are not interested in being team players, in give and
take, in being constructive and volunteering to help. Mostly, they're
just sitting back and waiting for someone (else) to turn off the lights.
Sad.
|