Ftoomsh, disconnection, etc.

Roland John Turner (rjturner@nospam.socs.uts.edu.au)
Fri, 19 May 1995 20:51:19 +1000 (EST)

It seems that we have, amongst the membership, some irreconcilable
diferences of opinion.

Hell, I even disagree with some of things written by people I
usually agree with and agree with some of those written by those
I typically disagree with.

Certainly, when ChrisK and myself (and all those other people) set
up ProgSoc, we had never considered the difficulties that network
connection would pose.

It seems then, that in order to proceed, we need to work from basic
principles - put aside ALL existing notions, assumptions,
expectations, practices and access to services.

Following are the priorities as I see them.

1. ProgSoc's existence must be protected.
=========================================

If we fail this objective, everything else is irrelevant.

I do not yet know the situation well enough to assess whether
or not ProgSoc's existence is threatened, but it is looking to
me as though we have trodden on some hazardously large toes. I
am proceeding from the assumption that its existence (specifically
its ability to remain Union affiliated) is threatened as a result
of what has occurred. Even if I am wrong, item 2 (below) is
certainly threatened and the appropriate course of action
remains unchanged.

2. ProgSoc's ability to act must be protected.
==============================================

We are guests. Guests of UTS, SOCS and others. As guests, our
ability to act depends critically upon the goodwill of our hosts
which in turn depends on our reputation, upon how
others view us. If we get ourselves seriously on the wrong side
of any of our hosts, we may continue to exist but may find ourselves
unable to even house our equipment, much less turn it on or connect
it to anything.

This would be only marginally less disasterous than ceasing to exist.

I believe that it is here that we are currently most directly
threatened and need to focus our energies. Whilst many of our
other goals are threatened (the provision of service appears to
be the sorest point), they are of less importance than this.

Right now it appears that we have upset ALL of our hosts, including
SOCS, UTS (VC!!!!!!! This is bad news, our ativities should NEVER
cause such escalation EVER.) and ITD. No doubt the Union is
copping (or will cop) flack as well.

In order to protect our ability to act, and possibly our existence,
we need to present an appealing image to these entities. If they
are not appeased, we're gone.

How do we do this?

1. Make the source of the annoyance go away AND make certain that it
is SEEN to go away.

This is a marketing exercise as well as a technical one. We
need to be seen to be taking drastic and immediate measures
to contain the problem. My preference would have been to
switch Ftoomsh off, however if our hosts are appeased by
the current arrangement, then all is well.

Those who are complaining about the disconnection really
have missed the point. This is not about preventing (or making
less likely) repeats. This is about causing our hosts to
believe that we are acting responsibly. That ProgSoc's
executive have shown sufficient commitment to be willing
to take such measures will go a long way towards achieving
this. That ProgSoc's executive ACTUALLY SOUGHT such
measures, rather than being complacent and having them
externally imposed, will further strengthen our position.

For this, Dennis has my congratulations. Many of his other
acts have, in my opinion, represented disasterous
mismanagement, but this act was entirely appropriate,
given the circumstances.

For those who are still having a problem with having been
disconnected, let me try putting it another way. The
disconnection is NOT a solution to the 'naughty users'
problem. It is indeed an inappropriate solution to
that problem and the suggestions that have been
raised are parts of a far more appropriate long term
solution. The disconnection is part of a solution to
the 'upset hosts' problem and, in my mind, represents
an excellent starting point.

2. Develop and implement a long term solution to the 'naughty users'
problem AND make it SEEN that this is occuring/has occurred.

For this, we need to develop a clear AUP.

Certainly I have my own opinions upon what such a document
should contain, but this is NOT an appropriate topic for
discussion in a mailing list at this early stage. A working
group is forming and needs to produce an appropriate AUP.

What makes an appropriate AUP?

Look at what we are trying to achieve (about 10 lines up) :

- What is and isn't acceptable must be clearly defined.
- Appropriate penalties must be defined.
- When our hosts read it, they must see it as a Good Thing.

3. Foster the appearance that ProgSoc is actually capable of achieving
these things.

Again, a marketing exercise. Make certain that ProgSoc is seen
to be an internally stable body with strong support for its
leadership.

First, Dennis is our President right now. Let us all support
him and foster a public appearance that this is occurring.

Second, let's cut the bickering NOW. Like it or not, this list
is a pretty public place. Bickering in this area WILL be seen
as an indicator that ProgSoc is not sufficiently stable or harmonius to
be trusted to do what is required to maintain our access
to the Net, a room, power, etc. In particular, whilst the
JLP may or may not be dead, it is certainly a dead issue.
My advice? DON'T EVEN MENTION IT. Right now, it isn't
relevant. We have a rather serious threat to resolve and
the means of containment that our hosts will want to see
is NOT democracy, it is the ability to take effective
action at little to no notice - in other words, strong
support for our leadership. Similarly, those continuing
to complain or argue about the consequences of Ftoomsh's
disconnection, PLEASE STOP NOW. If you have suggestions
as to how we can restore services and continue to achieve
a rapid improvement in our relationship with our hosts, please
forward them directly to Dennis.

Is what I am suggesting undemocratic? YES! Our survival is threatened.
Democracy is a good but expensive thing. We are dealing with hosts
who run on entirely non-democratic lines. We have neither the time,
nor enough room to move, to resolve our current difficulties with
these entities democratically. No doubt someone will pipe up and
express their concern at this, or that this approach will turn
ProgSoc into a fascist regime. Perhaps it will. I doubt that anyone
has the energy to keep this up long enough for that (remember that
the Union is still there - no-one can forcibly take control of
ProgSoc - if someone tries then we can if need be involve the
Union), but if it happens it happens. Better that for a little
while than our demise.

Everyone, PLEASE put your egos aside for a little while and pull
together to help carry ProgSoc through this. Stop the bickering
and start helping with the tasks at hand. Those who are able,
join the AUP working group and get together something that meets
the above objectives AND AS FEW OTHERS AS POSSIBLE. Those who
want to see our constitution changed, put it on hold. To change
it now would certainly show strength of intention, but also
instability. Let's work with what we've got.

Ftoomsh service availability? I suugest that we not even request
a re-establishment of service until after a new AUP and supporting
machinery is in place AND our relationship with our hosts is
both smoothed over and, perhaps, redefined. Those who are concerned
about loss of services that they obtain from Ftoomsh, please be patient,
it's tough but our other options are tougher. Those who are concerned
about loss of services provided by Ftoomsh to the people outside
ProgSoc, if those services really are rendered inoperative by the
current arrangement, look at alternate arrangements. Applying
pressure for more service now would foolish to say the least.
Finding a temporary alternate host would be a much better idea.
If you want to try this, as with everything else, co-ordinate
with Dennis. Having several seperate groups of users approach,
say, Jenny Edwards, with a request to temporarily house their
Web pages would not help us at all.

(Raz climbs off soap-box and hopes to himself that the ProgSoc
membership really is capable of pulling this off.)

- Raz