response 75 of 143:

Apr 12 20:55 UTC 1996

I don't think the fws should be elected, or have term limits. They are
volunteers doing a minor task, and if anyone does a good job as a volunteer,
I say *keep them*. If they don't do a good job, they should be replaced.
That is where the rub is. The mechanism I prefer is for the cfadm to
handle this "personnel" problem, and have  a talk with problem fws to either
get them to reform or decide to replace them. The job is a semi-technical
one, and primarily requires fairness and as little ego as possible. It
need not be a popularity position, and I think it is detrimental if it is made
into one.

response 77 of 143:

Apr 13 05:15 UTC 1996

   "...they should work to resolve the problem in the here and now..."

   Pray tell Jan, what on earth have several of us been doing these
last six+ weeks?  Our problem is that we can't get responses out of
TS.

   I see Mary's proposal as a system to insure a turnover of FW's;
and to help reinforce the thought that the current FW's of coop are
the stewards of the conference, and nothing more.  Already, we've
heard statements to the effect of "if TS and Nephi are to go then I
don't want a part of this".  That belies a thought that they somehow
are "entitled" to the post, which no FW is.

   Few people would catagorize me as someone who likes government.
I realize that we are adding something here, but I believe that
in this case some structure should be added.  Coop (and probably
garage?) are a little different from other conferences here in that
they relate to the running of the system.  This isn't an entertainment
type of conference, but something that helps keep Grex working.  For
that reason I'm willing to add some "government" to the conference.

response 79 of 143:

Apr 13 05:49 UTC 1996

Ts and nephi have shaved that nasty thing down, so that currently it is
somewhat less annoying than the Agora login screen.  If you still aren't
happy, call for their removal.  This hasn't been a continual problem on Grex,
it doesn't need a continual solution.

response 81 of 143:

Apr 14 00:45 UTC 1996

  The problem here has been that TsTy and Nephi, because of the lack of a 
system of checks and balances, did not feel the need to be as responsive to 
user sentiment as they should have been.

  This suggests that maybe there does need to be a mechanism for 
recalling fw's (at least on coop).  Requiring fw's to face user 
re-approval at the end of each year is a way of doing that, and of 
facilitating more frequent fw turnover.  This is better than holding 
elections, and as I've said I dont know what basis you would vote for one 
person as fw over another since under Mary's rules, the fw functions 
would be spelled out and not subject to debate.

  I've been pretty vocal about the need to spell out the role of fw's and 
what their responsibilities and relationships to the conference should 
be.  So in fact I like Mary's guidelines for the most part.  I think the 
board could "recommend" that other fw's "consider" similar guidelines as 
a means of fostering a healthy conferencing environment. I dont know why 
anyone would want to create and fw a conf with the idea of being a 
dictator.  Its clear that consensus here is that anything too formal 
would discourage people from wanting to create or fw confs.  But I think 
most users, if they really take the time to think about it, realize that
a conference on grex isnt private property, because if that was the case 
fw's would have the option of closing their confs and censoring posts.  

   Grex is a collective.  It is a cyber commune.  There is no reason that 
a philosophy that dictates the very nature of grex as a bbs, should not 
be assumed to extend to its inner workings.  FW's who make power plays 
and act un-responsive violate what grex is about.  

response 83 of 143:

Apr 14 11:13 UTC 1996

Cfadm didn't choose the coop fw's -- and shouldn't, in my opinion.
Nephi was selected by vote of the board after a call for volunteers
in coop.

response 85 of 143:

Apr 14 20:07 UTC 1996

I think Grex should be operated by volunteers, but volunteer jobs
should be delegated. I don't think naming fws is proper board business -
they have designated a cfadm to watch over the conferences. That's why
I think it should be a cfadm responsibility. The fws are, in effect, the
cfadm's "committee". And, maybe they should communicate more, among
themelves, and come up with recommendations on how to do their jobs.

response 87 of 143:

Apr 14 22:19 UTC 1996

  Maybe there should be a "fairwitness" conf where fw issues are
routinely discussed and fw's can go to barnstorm in an effort to
make their confs better.  If there is a helper conf for helpers, why
not an fw conf for fw's?

response 89 of 143:

Apr 14 23:11 UTC 1996

  sure, no reason a fair witness conference couldnt be general enough to
include discussions of conferencing not just on grex but other places as
well.

response 91 of 143:

Apr 15 15:56 UTC 1996

There's a current policy? Where? Whoever plugs a fw in is making a
decision to do that, usually based on the volunteers that come forward.
That *is* how I think it should work, except to recognize that that is a
decision, not just a techie thing. I recall some decisions having been
made in the past on choosing fws when a *lot* have volunteered. It was
done as a suggestion by the cfadm, I think I recall. 

response 93 of 143:

Apr 16 00:14 UTC 1996

maybe whats needed is a "fair witness committee".....a group of maybe
five or six people appointed by the board to oversee conference
policies.  The cfadmin can be the chariman of the fair witness committee.
This committee would approve conference proposals, mediate disputes,
and rubberstamp any cfadmin activity.  In addition, this conf could
reserve the right to make recommendations for fw's of coop and agora when
the need arises, said recommendations to be approved by the users
of the conf in question.  

This is better than making the cfadmin the Fair Witness Czar....

response 95 of 143:

Apr 16 00:52 UTC 1996

     I didnt even know m-net had a policy conference.  But a fw
committee wouldnt be the same thing.  This would just be a group of maybe 
five people, who are fw's of different confs, who act in a semi-official 
capacity to keep the board out of conferencing disputes and keep the 
cfadmin from having to make policy decisions unilaterally.

response 97 of 143:

Apr 16 01:18 UTC 1996

What Mary just said.  There have been a very small number of occasions on
which Grex has had something that can be described as FW problems.  Arguably
those could have been prevented by putting someone in charge of all the FWs;
I'd like to see some actual argument to that effect, though.  But the types
of problems you get from having someone have to make all those kinds of
decisions across the board are *much* worse than anything we've seen here.
It probably wouldn't *have* to be as bad as the example of That Other System,
& I think it probably wouldn't be any time soon, but then again it might be
even worse.

There's a simple cure for all human ills: shooting the patient.  These
solutions to our "problems" with FWs sound an awful lot like just shooting
Grex.  IMNAAHO.

response 99 of 143:

Apr 16 03:13 UTC 1996

There are many pros and cons to having a committee handle fw problems. 
While it hasnt been exactly smooth sailing over on mnet with confcom and 
fw problems, a confcom with good members can get a lot of things done. FW 
appointments on Mnet are not the mess some people here seem to think they 
are. My suggestion would be to skip Mnet's policy conference and read the 
last several confcom related conferences instead. A thorough read of 
confcom.cf and confpub.cf should be able to help anyone see the pros and 
cons of having a committee handle issues such as the one being discussed 
here.