response 76 of 220:

Apr 5 19:27 UTC 1995

  Heh.  That is likely a part of it.  We know that something can be
created out of nothing.

response 78 of 220:

Apr 5 22:50 UTC 1995

   I was wondering that too Dan, and I think I have an answer for
that now.  Simply stated, I think that the HVCN's goals, while probably
fairly similar to ours, are just enough different that if we tried
merging HVCN ideas into this system, one of us would be somewhat lost
inside the other.  And I don't think that Grex would have to lose out
to the HVCN, either.
   Grex's flavor of things, while entirely reasonable from my point of
view might not be seen so reasonably from others.  Having Grex and the
HVCN be two different machines probably is a win for everyone, as there
is more diversity in the Ann Arbor area.  ...And, on a purely practical
side, if one machine is down, you could try the other!

response 80 of 220:

Apr 6 02:41 UTC 1995

   Thats a neat idea, that of systems helping each other.  I'd like
to be in a position for something like that.  Thanks for the kind words
on Grex.  I'll lap those up any day (shameless, I know)... ;-)

response 82 of 220:

Apr 6 11:11 UTC 1995

Like Greg in #72, I'd like some clarification on the "kiosks" business
from *somebody* (doesn't have to be jep).

response 84 of 220:

Apr 6 13:29 UTC 1995

Steve, if you reread my statements in #81 you'll see that i said Grex
"differed in attitude, policys, and goals" and I believe that jibes with
your statement: "...but the higher level layers  like organization were and
are different".

My point was, that the Grex founders didn't sit down and say "Gee, I wonder
if we could create something called a 'conferencing system' and hook up
a bunch of modems that people could dial into and maybe we could make this
run under UNIX, and maybe somebody could write some software to make this
possible, wouldn't that be neat? And maybe there'll be enough interest in
the local area to keep such a thing running."

You pretty much already knew that all this was possible because it had been
done. Grex didn't invent anything, except maybe a slightly different
organizational style for it, but the concept of "coops" wasn't new either.

To counter what Valerie said in #75, Grex was not all *that* pie in the
sky and it was *based* on an "already-existing, proven" *idea*.

response 86 of 220:

Apr 6 14:13 UTC 1995

I never said or meant to imply that it was a sure thing.

My *point* was that while Grex was iffy from a "can we solve the logistical
and monetary problems" it was not the invention of a new thing.

response 88 of 220:

Apr 6 15:28 UTC 1995

   Yes.  Good point.

response 90 of 220:

Apr 7 04:09 UTC 1995

I don't think it's the word kiosk.  I think it's the entire concept
of publically accessible terminals that is bothering people.  Any
terminal outside of someone's home is going to be a big hassle to
maintain and protect from vandalism.

response 92 of 220:

Apr 7 05:31 UTC 1995

        The objection to kiosks was mine.  Not all of the Arbornet Board
members agreed that kiosks were a bad idea.  I believe the 6 of us had 6
different reasons, or sets of reasons, why we were uncomfortable with the
WIN letter of intent.
        We discussed "kiosks" at an early WIN meeting.  The picture I got was
as follows: some company has put together a free-standing computer with a
touch screen, meant for accessing menus, as I understand it.  A couple of
cities have had these installed; I read about San Francisco, which will be
installing hundreds of them.  It sounds like a sort of ATM + other things
concept -- ordering of tickets, things like that.  I do not know all of
the purposes for which these kiosks will be used.
        I objected to them at a couple of WIN meetings, and there was general
agreement that this might be something nice to shoot for with a future
grant, but that $250,000 wouldn't buy many of them.  The people who brought
them up were talking about getting them to put in front of Meijer's and at
bus stations and the like to provide access for those who don't have
computers and modems.  My objections were that they'd be too expensive,
too hard to maintain, and subject to vandalism as well as natural
deterioration from rain and snow and the like.
        The term was later re-defined to mean "terminals for public access",
by WIN meeting attendees, and I guess the intent was terminals at libraries 
and the like.  It's a hot-topic buzzword, kiosks is, and it seems to me it 
was included in the WIN letter in order to attract attention and support 
among those who leap at new ideas like that.
        It leapt at me, too, after my opposition to kiosks.  I was gone for
the meeting when the letter was completed, but I thought I'd killed the
concept of kiosks -- real kiosks -- with everyone's agreement.  I was
shocked, to put it mildly, that they were listed as the main intent of the
grant.  I didn't understand about the re-definition, and wouldn't have
supported it.
        That was my initial objection to the letter.  I was gone on vacation
the week the letter was finalized, and I missed some things I wish I
hadn't missed.  That part was really unfortunate.  I hadn't really noticed
the part about the kiosks at Arbornet's Board meeting until the end, in
closed session, when we were voting on what we were going to do, and by then 
Arnold was not around to explain.
        However, other Board members had objections, too.  Listening to those
objections, along with the kiosks deal, I became convinced that Arbornet
didn't really support the WIN proposal.  I don't agree with the other
Board members on everything about the WIN grant application, but
collectively, we were definitely opposed to it.  I made the motion to
withdraw from the WIN effort and pursue our own grant application.  It
passed 6-0.  In the end, I was mostly moved to pursue Arbornet's own
chance because there wasn't time to resolve our differences with the WIN
proposal.  I think most of the Board of Arbornet had the same thought.
        Some harsh words were spoken at the April 4 WIN meeting.  Some harsh
words have been spoken on M-Net since then.  This isn't rare on M-Net...
nevertheless, I don't agree with any of the harshness.  It isn't going to
help, and it's going to cause a lot of damage.  It's already caused some.
        I have gained some very good feelings for some of the people I've
worked with who are participating in WIN.  They're great people.  I want
to work with them more.  I want Arbornet to work with WIN -- after the
grant proposals are all sent in.  There's 0% chance, at this point, of
working together on the WIN grant proposal.  That's not pleasant, but I
hope it doesn't mean we can't come together again in the future.

response 94 of 220:

Apr 8 02:12 UTC 1995

        I understand when you say "M-Net" instead of "Arbornet", STeve.  No
one here talks of "Cyberspace"; they always talk of "Grex".  "M-Net" has
had meaning for a lot longer than "Arbornet" for most of the people around
here.

        As for whether Arbornet made a bad decision... I'll go so far as to
agree I'm not entirely happy right now with the way things have turned
out between Arbornet and WIN/Grex/HVCN.  Don't read too much into that.  I
do not blame anyone for what has happened, but I don't accept that only
Arbornet deserves to be blamed, either, if anyone has to be.  I have
plenty more to do than worry about accusations at this time.  I am not
here because of any need for Arbornet to answer them.  I am here because I
am looking beyond April 20, which is the deadline for the TIIAP grant.

response 96 of 220:

Apr 8 14:30 UTC 1995

M-net was not "created out of nothing" either - Mike Myers
and I created M-net with the goal of trying to capture the
conversational spirit of CRLT:Micros, but brought outside of
the university and made available to the general public.
So, really, M-net was no more original than grex.

I see Win as proceeding very much in the same pattern.  If
you look at most any university or college today, you can
see they have a rich environment of network access.  Those
universities spent oodles of money pioneering that kind of
access; but the technology is today much cheaper, and I
think also, people today appreciate and value the potential
of that technology in a way that was simply not true 5 years
ago.  That creates a new niche of opportunity, and this is
where I see WIN fitting in.

The thing about this networking, is it's inherently not a
single-organization project.  It's the glue and the fabric
to hook many different diverse organizations together, with
different operating philosophies and policies.  This is
where the real challenge is - not in terms of the technical
goop; (that's all old hat), but in terms of establishing
mutually beneficial relationships.  That takes time, and
hard work, and patience, and understanding, and tolerance.
But I am convinced that it can be done, that it is worth
doing, and that we can make a positive difference by
participating.  I'm very excited about the possibilities -
as excited as I was about grex, and before that, about
m-net.

response 98 of 220:

Apr 9 00:48 UTC 1995

I hate to say it, but I doubt if the Arbornet board will change its mind
in time for this proposal.  They've gone defensive.  The more it becomes
obvious that their decision was totally dumb, the more silent they get.
JEP's pretty much the only one who'll still talk about it.  Maybe there is
more going on behind the scenes though.  It's hard to tell.  JEP is about
the only one who still talks to users.