|
Grex > Coop8 > #95: Is it OK for one person to use several connections to Grex? | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 135 responses total. |
kerouac
|
|
response 75 of 135:
| 
Jul 29 23:02 UTC 1996 |
#73 slipped in...ryan, I thought this being a democratic system meant
meant I could speak out. Isnt that the idea? Staffes arent martyrs and
what they do for grex they do as much for themselves as foranyone else.
Ryan, YOU might want to get down and kiss staf's feet for grex, but I
think expecting ass-kssing is something staffers dont want. I
appreicate staff's work as much as anyone, but this system doesnt
go anywhere if one group of users is valued more than any other.
|
pfv
|
|
response 76 of 135:
|
Jul 29 23:10 UTC 1996 |
Ummmm... it's called "life"
Some folks ARE more valuable than others - doctor's deal with it
via triage, and I don't EVEN want to know what politicians call it..
If the staff is not "more valuable", then (again) I point at mnet where
they are losing techies and staffers all the time..
Sure, yer entitled to opinions and a voice, but yer also wrong in many
ways and that too is an opinion..
|
janc
|
|
response 77 of 135:
|
Jul 30 05:04 UTC 1996 |
I'm still baffled. I don't see any major problems with the way
staff/board/users interact here. If there were just one thing case where the
staff refused to go along with informed user opinion, then I might believe
that "staff is out of control." There isn't any such case. As far as I can
tell, this is all smoke.
|
robh
|
|
response 78 of 135:
|
Jul 30 07:02 UTC 1996 |
And mirrors, don't forget the mirrors.
|
brighn
|
|
response 79 of 135:
|
Jul 30 13:38 UTC 1996 |
The point is not whether staff abides by the feeling of the majority of
infomed or vocal users, Jan. It almost always does. The point is whether
or not staff abides by the feeling of Richard Wallner. It usually doesn't.
That *should* suggest to Richard Walner that his needs or interests are
sufficiently different from the rest of the bbs that he should take that
disparity into consideration when voicing his opinion, but he doesn't.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 80 of 135:
|
Jul 30 19:00 UTC 1996 |
jan, it isnt whether there is a problem, as much as there is a potential
form. I dont think saying that new software (if it involves major
changes) be subjected to being proposed and approved, in some loose
manner, is any great hardship. Something is wrong when the only
way to avoid disputes is to give staff total autonomy. The M-net
model went too far (I'd never support performance evaluations of
staff and the like), but that doesnt mean that this place wouldnt be
stronger in the long run with a few safeguards built in.
|
janc
|
|
response 81 of 135:
|
Jul 30 19:03 UTC 1996 |
Richard isn't the only person complaining.
It would be better if staff were more careful to keep people informed. But
doing so is more work for staff, and staff tends to be forgetful, and lots
of things that seem important in retrospect didn't look that way before hand.
If they are important, they will certainly come to the attention of the users
eventually. That's not the greatest way to do things, but it's better to put
up with a bit of than than with bureaucratising things to the point where
nothing gets done.
|
janc
|
|
response 82 of 135:
|
Jul 30 19:30 UTC 1996 |
Richard slipped in.
Is having new software proposed and approved a big problem? I could live with
it. I think srw and popcorn probably would. Marcus and gregc probably would
decline to work in such an environment. So you'd be losing a lot of very
high-powered talent in order to fix a "potential problem" which has never in
five years actually occured. Plus it wouldn't really fix the problem, because
even the authors of new software rarely know what its impact will be. So
discussing it in advance is at best partially effective. Most of the time
the conclusion you are going to arrive at is "try it and see what happens,
then we'll decide if we like it."
The other problem is that it would vastly slow down work on the system.
Most staff members time comes in little bursts. Currently Greg is almost
completely out of the picture, being completely occupied with work.
Marcus was tied up for most of the last month, but was recently able to
find some time to work on telnetd. All of us work in a mode where we
wake up, find we have some time, and then go work on something we've
been meaning to do on Grex. You are adding several steps to the work on any
particular job. (1) do enough preliminary design work so you can talk
sensibly about your idea, (2) start a discussion of the idea, participate
in that to give feedback, (3) implement the thing. So Marcus suddenly
finds he has a bit of time on his hands, but oops, he can't work because it
hasn't been approved yet. So it gets approved, but oops, Marcus has a
big thing come up at work and won't see daylight for two months. Things
get very, very slow.
I am not proposing that the staff be given total automony. It has never had
total automony. If everything you do is subject to later review and
alteration then you are not autonomous. What I am asking is that people
recognize that staff has day-to-day responsibility and has to make day-to-day
decisions, that given our work schedules we are sometimes going to be
sneaking in bursts of Grex-work in the middle of the night with very little
warning.
|
gracel
|
|
response 83 of 135:
|
Jul 30 19:40 UTC 1996 |
1. Grex staff are wonderful [this is not a paid advertisement]
2. Nobody wants to be notified & go through discussion beforehand about
*everything* that staff do. Staff understand that; some things are too
trivial (if only "added these 2 names to the birthday program"). Some
things are significant enough that they deserve thorough pre-discussion.
Staff understand that, too. For each thing they have to decide whether
it is in fact significant enough -- a judgment call.
In some cases lately, either the pre-discussion was not thorough enough
to be totally satisfactory or else the judgment call apparently went the
wrong way. This does not justify, to my mind, any claim that staff are
unresponsive or that "the system isn't working"; the system just isn't
*perfect*. A system where every change had to be specified beforehand
wouldn't be any better! Maybe we need to clarify what should be considered
"significant" (preferably in a separate item).
|
kerouac
|
|
response 84 of 135:
|
Jul 30 19:50 UTC 1996 |
#83...good idea...for instance I dont consider the logging off
mulitple logins bit that popcorn added to the idle timer to be a
"significant" software change. It doesnt effect everyone on the
system. But the idle timer itself could and the wait que clearly does. Those
I would consider major.
If we only have four or five pieces of software like that that are added each
year, surveying the users on how they feel about each of these changes is not a
big deal.
When these software changes just occur, without prior notice and without users
being given the opportnity for proper input, it gives the impression to users
who dont know better, that the staff owns the system, that grex is privately
owned.
Users with that perception do not buy memberships and they do not contribute
because they dont see that there is apoint. I honestly think that most people
on grex dont know what grex is and dont understand how it is run.
This is a way of fighting false perceptions.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 85 of 135:
|
Jul 30 21:31 UTC 1996 |
I agree that there is a wide spectrum of staff actions that call for
prior discussion ranging from zero to votes. I think this discussion
may have helped to reinforce a general notion that the balance should
lie toward notification and discussion. What I would like as a minimum
is notification, even if not lengthy. This is like shutdowns - most staff
give 10 minutes notice (20 would be nicer, but then staff would sit around
the dungeon for that, which itself isn't nice). If just notification were
given - with as much advance as possible - we should learn pretty quickly
about concerns.
|
mdw
|
|
response 86 of 135:
|
Jul 30 21:43 UTC 1996 |
In the past year, I have (at least), made "significant" changes to:
finger, fingerd, login, ls, newuser, passwd/chfn/chsh, bbs, sendmail,
mail.local, umailck, talkd, ntalkd, the shadow library, /etc/rc, and
&etc. Some of these changes are pretty major; for instance, at one
point, I essentially *replaced* the entire mail delivery process, when
we went from smail to sendmail. Many of these changes aren't very
visible to the average user - I doubt anyone noticed when "ls" sprouted
a few more options one day. A few changes are more noticeable, for
instance the mailbox quotas were certainly noticeable, especially when
they first went in. I have tried, whenever possible, to be
"conservative" and to preserve the look and feel of things, when
possible. I don't believe *any* of these changes, even all lumped
together, have generated anywhere *near* the controversy of the
"queuing" change.
As to why that's so, that's harder to say. Certainly, the initial
unreliability was a factor. Unfortuantely, Grex can't afford a $100K
test lab - and that's what it would have taken to do the testing
"off-line". The only substitute for that was a *lot* of my time, and
your frustration, to be sure (as well as mine). Unfortunately, I only
have limited time, and spent too much time on this as it is. If I also
had to go through and "justify" each of my decisions, well in advance,
before some sort of committee of the users, well, it just would not have
happened. I also have time commitments to work, friends, and other
responsibilities, and any who know me know I have little tolerance for
"bureaucracy".
When I say "committee of the users", I mean that quite literally. The
vast enormous majority of grex users couldn't care less what *any* of us
here think, staff, members, board, and all. I don't think any of you
people who are complaining realize just how *little* interest the
average grex user has in the mechanics of how the system is run. So
forget about "democracy" when you talk "committee", it just ain't gunna
happen. At best, what you would succeed in doing is replacing one tiny
sliver of power structure, "the staff", with another equally tiny and
argueably far less qualified sliver, "the committee who keeps grex staff
from trampling all over the rights of the poor abused users on grex".
Unfortunately, there really is precious little you can do to fix this.
Even "every one of us" here in coop, altogether, is *not* a democratic
cross-section of grex (count the indians amongst us).
In the end, unfortunately, this all comes down to "trust". Either you
"trust" staff to do their job, or you do not. If you do, then there is
nothing to fix. If you don't, then there is no fix that can fix the
problem, short of no staff at all.
|
brighn
|
|
response 87 of 135:
|
Jul 30 22:40 UTC 1996 |
I would also suggest that interminable discussions of changes -- that is,
discussions that continue far after the decision has been made via the
"proper" channels -- discourage staff from even mentioning they're about to
make a change. If I were working as a volunteer programmer in the climate
that co-op has created, I would be inclined to silently make changes and hope
nobody notices, rather than attempt a discussion. I don't think the problem
is staff, I think the problem is certain users (and by this, I do mean more
people than Kerouac) who refuse to let go of their personal peeves even after
the vast majority of co-opers have voiced an opposite opinion, and a decision
has been announced. The problem, again, is with the word "consensus" -- do
we, after all, seek a TOTAL UNANIMOUS approval of every change? If so, we're
never going to get one for most changes. Some users for instance prefer the
old telnetd 2-minute freeze to the queue, others prefer the queue. The only
way to operate, then, is to not have either system -- that is, totally
disallow telnets entirely. That solution is absurd.
(Disclaimer: I'm sure I've clung to some pet peeve or other of my own... this
isn't meant as a genenric ad hominem, but rather a much more generic
statement.)
|
kerouac
|
|
response 88 of 135:
|
Jul 30 23:47 UTC 1996 |
apathy is something that wehave to fight. Efforts and I mean strong
efforts have to be made to get users involved. Not just becoming
members but becoming involved, reading coop and partaking of discussion.
Users have to know that such involvement is worthwhile, that their
input is wanted, needed, and hoped for and that to the best of their
ability, staff and board will include them in the process.
My peeve is that staff generally doesnt want users involved in the
process. They want software decisions and such to be theirs
basically and for the users to be basically apathetic. Marcus as
much as said he wants the users to be apathetic, because he doesnt
have or want to take the time to deal with them. If Grex was
his private property this would be fine. But if Marcus is not
dealing with a board that he owns, he shouldnt expect complete
autonomy.
Grex cannot reach its potential until it validates the democratic
concepts on which it was set up. Either board or staff want to
take every step possible to enfranchise the users or they dont. If they
dont, the bylaws should be changed because it is hypcritical to
have elections for a system that is non-democratic. I'm sure
this place would run just fine if elections were abolished, and the
board and staff had total permannt authority. But then the board and
staff would have to finance grex without user memberships. You cant
expecxt people to pay for a board they have no real input into.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 89 of 135:
|
Jul 31 00:19 UTC 1996 |
Marcus says: "At best, what you would succeed in doing is replacing one
tiny sliver of power structure, "the staff", with another equally tiny and
argueably far less qualified sliver, "the committee who keeps grex staff
from trampling all over the rights of the poor abused users on grex"."
They may be a "tiny sliver", but the MEMBERS in effect own and manage this
system. They have only delegated a board to handle day-to-day affairs
(who, in turn, have delegated technical matters to a staff). When someone
makes changes to a house one rents, for example, it is considered
necessary to inform (even ask) the owner. The members here should be
accorded the same status, rights, and courtesies.
Perhaps the board should delegate somebody(ies) to do this for the
members, if staff is too busy to do it.
|
mdw
|
|
response 90 of 135:
|
Jul 31 00:32 UTC 1996 |
It just ain't true.
I know that whenever I tell somebody "we don't do this on grex", be it
POP, telnet for guests, or whatever, I also specifically invite the user
to "bring it up in coop", and I invite them to become a voting member.
I've even managed to annoy people by trying to do this, I fear because I
wasn't feeling especially diplomatic that day. I do not want to be the
"person in charge". Indeed, as other staff members can attest, when we
(staff) start making decisions that might be controversial, I am *often*
the first one to say "we should bring this up in coop" or "we should ask
the users". I have sometimes said the same thing to the board, when
I've felt they haven't been as proactive in seeking user input as I
think they should be.
If I had *wanted* a system where *I* was in charge, grex would be *very*
different today. If it existed at all. I became dissatisfied with the
way m-net was being run, because it was, in fact, being run exactly as a
fiefdom, in overt form, just as Richard Wallner seems to fear the most.
If I had wanted "complete control", all I would have needed to do at
that point is "start" just exactly such a system, except with me in
charge. I would certainly have invited a somewhat different group of
people to help me start such a system - but I am sure I could have found
such a gruop with little trouble. I would certainly have had to sink
more of my own resources into such a project, and I would not have had
the same freedom to pursue other interests, such as food on the table,
that I do have today. Instead of those people, I invited people that I
thought would genuinely care about a "group run" system, for the benefit
of the "users". I am also damn proud of the results. Damn proud.
The queuing software is hardly something I was jumping up and down for.
Indeed, it is very much something I'd rather not see, because I am
worried people might see it as an excuse not to add more ptys and
increase access to the system. I dragged my heels long & hard on the
whole project. I was the last person to be sold on the need to do it.
But finally, even I had to admit, that "no ports" was an even less
satisfactory answer, and that queuing really was the best acceptable
solution to the problems of network lag.
So, to put it bluntly, YOU, Richard Wallner, YOU accuse me of crimes I
did not commit, crimes that are precisely the reverse of everything I
believe in, and crimes that are completely the opposite of all that I
have worked for, from the beginning. Repeating a lie often enough may
make it the truth in Washington, but it is hardly an ethical or fair way
to conduct business. I am insulted and I am hurt by your accusations.
I ask that you withdraw them.
|
brighn
|
|
response 91 of 135:
|
Jul 31 00:49 UTC 1996 |
Apathy has two causes:
(1) People don't like the changes but don't feel like their voice will be
heard.
(2) People don't mind the changes, or even like the changes.
We really only need to encourage discussion if the majority of the cases of
apathy fall under (1). ("encourage discussion" in a gneric way, not on a
specific issue). I'm inclined to believe (and I may be wrong) that (a) the
vast majority of apathetic users fall under (2), and (b) Marcus (and other
staff who use the term "apathy") agree with that perception and would show
some level of concern if they honestly believed that the innocent users of
grex feel downtrodden and abused. Frankly, on those occasions where I've felt
downtrodden and abused, I've threatened to leave. See, I'm not getting paid
to stay here, the only friends that I would miss terribly and insatiably can
be kept in contact with outside of this bbs, and so I will not die if Grex
dies, or if I leave it. I think the vast majority of users feel the same way,
and they stay here not because they're downtrodden, abused, and ignored but
feel helpless to leave, but rather because Grex is a rather pleasant place
to be, even though the color of the walls or the pile of the carpet changes
slightly now and then.
People who are terriblypissed off about some detail or other of Grex either
eventually find the co-op conference or they leave. There's a queue often
enough to suggest that maybe, just maybe (persih the thought) most users are
apathetic because they like it here and don't mind change.
Now, I'm not saying that we're wrong in discussing change -- we're not. And
I'm not saying that staff (and by extension baff) are responsive little saints
who cater to the users' every whim with smiles as wide as Texas. Ironiaclly,
the staffer who I feel like I'm defending the most here has said one sentence
to me in the last year. But I don't think it's fair to say that staffers --
as a group -- are totally unresponsive to the users and want nothing from the
users but silent sheep. I'm saying -- and continue to say -- that if I,
personally, were a staffer, I'd be disinclined fro mdiscussion software
changes merely because of the nauseating overdiscussion (points to the
conference littered with E. equus corpses bearing multitutdes of post-mortem
contusions) (*laughs at contusion, his private joke, and offers to explain
it privately to anyone who cares to listen*) that is involved. Let's say
I wanted to change Grex so that everytime you logged on, your last login was
checked, and if it was within the last twelve hours, you got the message,
"Hey, cowboy, using the system a bit much, aren't you?" I start a discussion,
and now I have to slog through someone's four-screen peeve speech, someone
else's three-screen tirade against the speech, the first person's five screen
reiteration of everything they said in the first speech, on the impression
that if you say something loud enough and enough times, then wisdom will come
to the unenlightened, choirs of angels will sing your praises, and dawn will
arrive dragged by Appollo's trusty steeds (hey, how's *that* for mixed
mythology?)... I have to read through all of this, looking for the one
sentence that is actually different, because Hellfire rain upon me if I miss
it, all because I wanted to do something playful with the login system. A
five-minute programming job has turned into a three-week adventure of ad
hominems, plaintive pleas, and accusations of tyranny. And look at what I've
become, creating the same spam spam spam spam that I'm decrying.
*listens carefully* No choirs of angels.
Funky.
Word out.
Summary for those who didn't feel like reading all of that.
Staff is concerned about the needs of users. Mos tusers are happy with the
system and are at the same time willing to accept most changes, especially
if those changes improve the system. Extensive discussion of issues tends
to discourage further initiations of discussion.
|
brighn
|
|
response 92 of 135:
|
Jul 31 00:51 UTC 1996 |
(marcus slipped ahead of me and demonstrates my hypothesis about his actual
views on the issue)
|
dam
|
|
response 93 of 135:
|
Jul 31 02:18 UTC 1996 |
My lack of 'vocal participation' (sounds better than apathy?) is due to number
2: I don't mind the changes, and even like the changes.
most of the time, I do not state my opinion because it does not further the
discussion.
In this case, however, it is to defend the way things are being done around
here by the volunteers who are doing it.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 94 of 135:
|
Jul 31 07:16 UTC 1996 |
Now here is a brilliant suggestion - give the Summary first ;->
|
tsty
|
|
response 95 of 135:
|
Jul 31 07:38 UTC 1996 |
ummmm, this drift is quality. and yet the item is about two things: the
multiple-login zapper (and idle zapper).
here's a bone for the dogs: paid memberships may login up to three times
before the grim reaper zaps them, guests may login once.
discuss.
|
scott
|
|
response 96 of 135:
|
Jul 31 11:04 UTC 1996 |
<scott encourages kerouac to become a paid member>
Heck, for that matter,
<scott encourages brighn to become a paid member>
No offense, just that if you care that much about Grex to get to this level
of discussion, surely you can help with the nuts&bolts. I recall a while back
(like last year some time) kerouac wanting to know how a non-staffer could
help out on Grex...
|
brighn
|
|
response 97 of 135:
|
Jul 31 14:31 UTC 1996 |
Scott, I don't have the money right now.
I did contribute about a year's worth of membership dues in merchandise to
the auction, and volunteered for the validator position, and would be willing
to do other workhorse stuff within my capabilities... but to imply that if
I don't cough up the cash I don't care is just unfair.
(No actual offence taken, just pointing it out)
|
davel
|
|
response 98 of 135:
|
Jul 31 17:14 UTC 1996 |
I don't quite think that's what Scott meant. In fact, I'm *sure* it's not.
|
tsty
|
|
response 99 of 135:
|
Jul 31 17:40 UTC 1996 |
idle-zapper anyone? multi-logins anyone? <and i think scott was
just tweaking the potential support base a bit>
|