|
Grex > Coop8 > #111: Mail issues in a Backtalk world | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 16 new of 90 responses total. |
kerouac
|
|
response 75 of 90:
| 
Oct 4 19:49 UTC 1996 |
but a joint membership wouldnt cost grex any money...and
could make it money. I fail to see how it could hurt.
|
ajax
|
|
response 76 of 90:
|
Oct 4 22:15 UTC 1996 |
It just seems like a hassle to me, with almost no benefit. If
either system wants to offer a discount to members of other groups,
that would seem a lot simpler. They can do it unilaterally, and
don't have to transact money and proofs of identity with the other
group. As for whether Grex should offer discounts to M-Net
"members," I still think it's not worth the added complexity.
|
srw
|
|
response 77 of 90:
|
Oct 5 05:29 UTC 1996 |
Way back in #58, Mary explains (quite well) how Grex has historically
managed its finances. It is based on the altruism of its users. This
appears to work, but it means Grex never has very much money, and this limits
what grex can do.
I believe that it would not be unreasonable for grex to change (slightly)
in this regard. I am not put off by the idea of restricting some attractive
facility beyond the ones we do already restrict, to paying members.
POP is a reasonable choice, and I have propose others in the past, such
as private party channels, and web pages.
I am obviously in the minority on the Grex board on this question, but I want
to take this time to remind the users that at least one board member thinks
this way. I will be resigning the board at the end of the year, and I do hope
that if someone else who feels this way runs, it will give the users a chance
to be heard in a meaningful way on the question.
|
scott
|
|
response 78 of 90:
|
Oct 5 12:08 UTC 1996 |
I'd also like to do some kind of limitation on services. Web pages or party
channels come to mind.
|
dang
|
|
response 79 of 90:
|
Oct 5 15:17 UTC 1996 |
I agree with srw and scott. I also think that pop, web pages, and private
party channels are three possibilities. However, I'm not on board. :)
|
mta
|
|
response 80 of 90:
|
Oct 6 00:49 UTC 1996 |
I respectfully disagree. I want to see GREX be as open to all users as we
can be. There are good reasons for restricting some things -- but I'd want
to minimize it. GREX had as one of it's founders goals the intent of
providing access to the information revolution to as many people who would
otherwise not have access as possible. If we start making a big distinction
between "members" and "users" we set the "members" up in a position of
expecting the perks they've "paid" for. Ick.
|
ladyevil
|
|
response 81 of 90:
|
Oct 7 20:50 UTC 1996 |
And party channels? How petty! Web pages, Ican see- they take up a lot of
room, (or can), but party channels??
|
dang
|
|
response 82 of 90:
|
Oct 7 21:14 UTC 1996 |
(this was a moneymaker, not a tech issue. And, I think I've changed my mind
on this one.)
|
scott
|
|
response 83 of 90:
|
Oct 8 00:26 UTC 1996 |
Space isn't much of an issue next to link and CPU. Both Web and party use
up a decent amount of both resouces.
|
srw
|
|
response 84 of 90:
|
Oct 10 07:06 UTC 1996 |
I would be happier with that idealism if more Grex users would support our
system. But there are not very many users who do so (fewer than 100 out of
14000+). So I think it is reasonable to move very slightly away from the
"everything should be free" school of thought.
Membership would still be a donation. Not a patronship.
I believe this can be done while leaving the main portions of what we provide
still free for all. Think of it as a compromise. I find the idea of remaining
poor and underfunded forever to be ickier. Ick.
|
ajax
|
|
response 85 of 90:
|
Oct 10 15:29 UTC 1996 |
I used to be more supportive of offering added benefits with membership.
I'm still very much on the fence, but I think offering very few benefits
also draws certain members. People look at what they get in return for
donations, see that it's quite paltry, and realize that membership is
really more about charity than business. Either approach attracts and
repels different types of people.
|
davel
|
|
response 86 of 90:
|
Oct 10 21:21 UTC 1996 |
"Charity" isn't the word I'd use. Otherwise I wholly agree. Personally,
I'd be much more comfortable than most (all?) of the Grex founders
- and (I'd guess) than most of the more active members - with a more
businesslike system. But I'd view rapid changes in that direction as a
likely recipe for disaster. We've built a system with a very distinctive
culture. Changing it in ways that those who support the system - staff
and members especially - are uncomfortable with is very likely to drive
a bunch of them away, *without necessarily attracting any support at all
to replace them*.
That's not an argument against tweaking the system; it's an argument against
radical changes of this sort.
|
chelsea
|
|
response 87 of 90:
|
Oct 11 00:28 UTC 1996 |
I don't think I want to see a Grex that has lots more
money to grow bigger and faster. I don't think of Grex
as it is right now as poor. I think we're very rich in
many ways that money would spoil.
But those who measure value by how much they can buy
won't understand this at all.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 88 of 90:
|
Oct 11 07:29 UTC 1996 |
"Charity" is the correct (as well as legal) word for donating without
a mercenary expectation. Charity can be - indeed should be - businesslike.
Are you saying instead that you would like a more mercenary system, Dave?
|
ladyevil
|
|
response 89 of 90:
|
Oct 12 20:35 UTC 1996 |
Mary- I get it. I have always counted the many wondeful people who are here
as our biggest asset.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 90 of 90:
|
Oct 17 03:55 UTC 1996 |
Way back in #0 choice (1) said "notify users that they have mail and how to
go about accessing it" (via telnet). How about (1A) wherein they are told
that X # of items will be deleted unless accessed by such and such a date?
That would at least address the problem of space being eaten up by
accumulating non-read mail...
|