On Tue, 15 Jan 2002 22:31:37 -0500, Richard Gambrell <richard-
[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Reef Fish wrote:
>[snip]
>>
>> I am very glad that Crusty had voluntarily looked into this matter, and
>> had privately confided to me that he was prepared to act as the "back-
up".
>> His proposal seems to be the most desirable one at this time, IMHO, for
>> at least THREE reasons:
>>
>> 1. To permanently alleviate the problem of disk space (in UTC) to
>> archive the proposed LIST, or dependence on Jeff (or the UTC staff)
>> to maintain Ownership.
>>
>> 2. To offer a more "stable" base for the LIST, free from potential or
>> actual budgetary or other problems typical of many .edu environments.
>>
>> 3. Last but most importantly, IMO, is Crusty's expressed desire to keep
>> the list an OPEN FORUM, not subject to the whims of Owners like Nick
>> (of Scuba-L) the very reason many of us left Scuba-L to seek refuge
>> in Scuba-SE offered by Jeff at the time Nick exercised his tyranny
>> and dictatorship AGAINST the overwhelming majority vote of the
>> Scuba-L readership and frequent contributors at the time of the
>> split.
>>
>> I am not aware of anyone who would object to Crusty being the Owner
>> of a LIST which is the continuation (or replacement) of the present
>> Scuba-SE, whereas some other proposals had met with objections when
>> Jeff's disk space problem first surfaced and the proposals were
>> openly discussed in Scuba-SE.
>[snip]
>
>> I am very glad that Crusty had voluntarily looked into this matter, and
>> had privately confided to me that he was prepared to act as the "back-
up".
>> His proposal seems to be the most desirable one at this time, IMHO, for
>> at least THREE reasons:
>>
>> 1. To permanently alleviate the problem of disk space (in UTC) to
>> archive the proposed LIST, or dependence on Jeff (or the UTC staff)
>> to maintain Ownership.
>>
>> 2. To offer a more "stable" base for the LIST, free from potential or
>> actual budgetary or other problems typical of many .edu environments.
>>
>> 3. Last but most importantly, IMO, is Crusty's expressed desire to keep
>> the list an OPEN FORUM, not subject to the whims of Owners like Nick
>> (of Scuba-L) the very reason many of us left Scuba-L to seek refuge
>> in Scuba-SE offered by Jeff at the time Nick exercised his tyranny
>> and dictatorship AGAINST the overwhelming majority vote of the
>> Scuba-L readership and frequent contributors at the time of the
>> split.
>>
>> I am not aware of anyone who would object to Crusty being the Owner
>> of a LIST which is the continuation (or replacement) of the present
>> Scuba-SE, whereas some other proposals had met with objections when
>> Jeff's disk space problem first surfaced and the proposals were
>> openly discussed in Scuba-SE.
>[snip]
>
>Just a note to say that we (UTC) doesn't have a horse in this race,
>of course, but I do want to point out that we are planning to move
>listserv to a newer RAID based server with plenty of disk sometime
>over the next few months. We can assign a owner for this list
>to whomever is available and willing, and that the liat members are
>willing to have, which I think is the more immediate need.
Richard, I am glad you stepped in at this time to clarify the UTC
disk space situation (which had been one of Jeff's main concern,
especially when the scarce resource was gobbled up by flamewars. <G>)
and proposal which does seem to simply the solution to the present
"crisis" of Ownership by an Owner who is unable to do the daily
chores of List maintenance because he has been seriously ill.
From the follow-ups to your first post, there appears to be a
unanimous consensus, among those who expressed their opinions publicly,
to accept Chuck's offer to "fill in for Jeff" to satisfy your
"immediate need".
On a longer-term horizon, as long as you can assign an Owner to the
UTC based Scuba-SE LIST, to whomever is available and willing, and
acceptable to list members, it pretty much boils down to an "election"
of Owner by list members -- a concept which has been foreign to Scuba-L
and not surprisingly rejected by Nick the self-appointed dictator.
I PERSONALLY would prefer a RETURN to Scuba-L based on the same idea
of ELECTION of an Owner, based on the combined membership of former
and present members of Scuba-L and present members of Scuba-SE, to be
assigned by Brown, and restore Scuba-SE to its former dormant state,
for at least THREE reasons:
(1) Scuba-SE is a "South East US Travel list", not a typical LISTSERV
List on a subject matter, that has a single suffix "-L" to the
subject. E.g, Scuba-L, Shark-L, and hundreds of other XXXX-L.
(2) Scuba-SE is not archived by groups.google.com -- by far the most
comprehensive and versatile of all newsgroup/list archives.
Scuba-L is archived there under "bit.listserv.scuba-L". The
short archives in LISTSERV lose many valuable contributions by
members over the years.
(3) The current Scuba-SE far exceeds Scuba-L in traffic, substance,
and every respect in a scuba LIST. Most of the contributors in
Scuba-SE are former (as well as present) contributors in Scuba-L.
The DATA contrasting the two LISTS are astounding:
Since 1/1/2002, Scuba-L had a total of 17 posts (as of this
writing), excluding a perioic post by Nick and a
FW of Richard's post about Jeff by Don. That's
about ONE per DAY.
Since 1/1/2002, Scuba-SE had a total of 257 posts (as of this
writing), nearly all scuba discussions, in spite of
the fact that I rarely posted (which under previous
normal circumstances would have added another 100-
150 to the 257 total).
In 12/2001, Scuba-SE had a total of 269 posts, although I posted
a total of only FIVE that month, and Strike severely
curtailed his posting.
In 12/2001, Scuba-L did not have a SINGLE post the first 10 days,
followed by a thread "No Mail????", then by TWO lengthy
NON-SCUBA threads, "Tooth extractions (was: No Mail????)"
and "URGENT!! MAYBE A VIRUS!!" Those contributed to
a TOTAL of 61 posts in that MONTH, excluding Nick's two
periodic postings of Guidelines which no one reads.
For Jeff's sake, and the sake of all those who took refuge from
Scuba-L to Scuba-SE, I think it's high time that SOMEONE who is
a member on both lists bring up the idea of a DEMOCRATIC ELECTION
PROCESS to elect a fair and able Owner, for all to be able to return
back to the one single list.
>One other
>comment, as long as UTC IT runs the listserv, there is always an
>appeal to UTC IT management concerning any fairness or dictatorship
>issue. We regard listserv as one of our production systems and we
>fully intend to run it well.
Hear, hear! That's the way it SHOULD BE in Scuba-L, but wasn't and
isn't. That's the way it has been in Scuba-SE, and still is.
> Regarding any list problems or issues
>"right now" contact me or [log in to unmask] for resolution.
Crusty will be back this weekend. Chuck seems the only candidate for
the "fill in for Jeff" job now.
For an election in the future, for Ownership of either Scuba-SE, or
Ownership of a re-combined Scuba-L/SE, I nominate
Russ Berger (aka Crusty Russ)
who has done a tremendous service to the memberships of BOTH groups,
from the COS99NEDfest shirts to the organization of the CAIV02NEDfest,
and who is WILLING and ABLE, and FAIR and NONCONTROVERSIAL.
I hope Strike (being the most prolific member of BOTH Scuba-L and
Scuba-SE, and a man of fairness and integrity) will take a leading
role (as he does in most issues <BG>) of conducting an Ownership
Election, for the betterment of both groups!
I'll be away diving with Strike's Triggerfish friends. :-)
>Let me add a hearty agreement to the wish and prayer for Jeff to
>return to the road to recovery!
-- Bob.
|
