Future of the Forum

[AdMan]

Is there an "invalid" reason for somebody not being active on a forum? I think enthusiasm for the <whatever> is a prerequisite for handing over <a very active whatever> to somebody.

It takes a lot of time and effort to run something like this. It's clear he's not enthusiastic about the forum, and there's nothing wrong with that. Saying "if you can see if people are interested in me doing it I will consider it" is not a sign of leadership. That's what a follower says.

Has Mr. Wagg done anything at all to address the performance issues on the forum? If he didn't know about them, then that indicates just how out of touch he is with the place. Or maybe he did know and just didn't step up.

Neither scenario makes him a good candidate for getting the keys.

You are obviously unfamiliar with Mr. Wagg, or you would not be spouting like this. And nobody that I can see is suggesting to keep Lisa and the other volunteers and icerat out of the picture.

 

[barehl]

It's a dedicated box installed 5.5 years ago

I built the computer I'm using in 2009 so not much after this one.

Bare Metal Server Installed 2/19/2009 in Seattle @ Softlayer
CentOS 2.6.18-92.e15
SuperMicro X7QCE Intel Xeon HexCore QuadProc Sata 4Proc

The "Hexcore" part refers to Dunnington compatibility which came out after Tigerton.

4x2GB Generic RAM

This is incorrect. This motherboard only uses FB-DIMM. This was Intel's failed attempt at a new memory standard that used serial links to avoid the problem of fan-out on a common memory bus. This was intended to allow massive memory. This particular motherboard has 24 separate FB-DIMM slots.

4x2.13GHz Intel Xeon-Tigerton (7320-Quadcore)

The 2.13 Ghz is the middle range. These went from 1.6 - 2.93 Ghz. Also, it's not a true quad core. It's actually two separate dual core chips in the same package.

SuperMicro AOC-SIMSO-plus Remote Management Card
2xSuperMicro PWS-1K01-1R Power Supply
SuperMicro BPN-SAS-828TQ Backplane
Adaptec 3405 Drive Controller
Western Digital Raptor 10,000 RPM WD1500ADFD (sdb) for Database
Seagate Cheetah ST373455SS [73GB] (sda) for system

Back then, 10,000 RPM drives were fairly expensive. The motherboard ran $1,000 and the four CPU's were $1,100 apiece. The FB-DIMM memory ran about $400. This system had to cost at least $8,000 so they weren't skimping when they bought it.

The problem with this system is that it is the wrong kind. These processors are still based on Intel's old Front Side Bus technology which connects the processors via a shared bus to the northbridge. The northbridge has four separate memory channels going out to the four FB-DIMM banks. Each bank can handle six separate FB-DIMMs and each one can be 1, 2, 4, or 8 GB. This would allow for 192 GBs of memory. These FB-DIMMs are probably 533 Mhz (although they could be 667).

The northbridge could transfer 17 GBs of data per second to and from memory. The FSB is clocked at 1066 Mhz (technically 266 quad pumped). This FSB can move 8.5 GBs per second or half of what the memory controller can handle. However, since these are actually twin package chips, the FSB sees them as eight separate processors. If each of these processors wanted to access memory the demand is 8x greater than the FSB can handle. This configuration works pretty well if you have floating point intensive operations and you want a large model to be held in memory. This might happen with a large CAD, engineering, or graphic file.

Unfortunately, this system does nothing like that. It does not make use of Tigerton's excellent floating point crunching capability at all but instead is memory intensive where the FSB is a massive log-jam. To be honest, three of those four processors in this configuration are doing nothing most of the time since they are mostly waiting on memory. As some have pointed out, two separate systems each with one processor would actually have been faster as well as cheaper. It's very unfortunate because clearly someone was trying to set up a robust system and ended up with something inadequate even though it was not a cheap system. Someone mentioned memory. Adding memory to this system would not help since the FSB is the problem.

I assume from that it's on a 100Mbps network.

Probably although the motherboard actually has two Gigabit ethernet ports so it would top out at 2000Mbps if both were used.

I'm not an expert on interpreting vmstat but this sample doesn't appear too bad (ie it's not a time when things are lagging badly) but a cpu upgrade would provide some immediate benefits, as I suspect would moving images out of the db, if they're not already.

I assume here you mean a system upgrade rather than just the CPUs.

It was a good motherboard for a particular task. Although it's not being used, the drive controller can do RAID 1, 5, and 10. It's a shame that it was so far off for this particular application.

 

[Wolfman]

Is there an "invalid" reason for somebody not being active on a forum? I think enthusiasm for the <whatever> is a prerequisite for handing over <a very active whatever> to somebody.

Dan,

Jeff worked for the JREF for years, and was the last person to serve as official forum liaison; and in that role, he did a really great job, demonstrating an even hand and fair perspective. To me, that proven performance is a major issue. I've seen how Jeff runs a forum; I haven't seen how icerat does it.

In regards to Jeff's lack of recent participation in the forums, that is due in part to the fact that after leaving the JREF, he started his own business (which takes a significant amount of his time)...and, at least by my perceptions, because when he left the JREF, he did so because of conflict with the leadership there (which could also have an impact on his desire to be involved with the forums).

Being in charge of these forums isn't just an issue of "who is here the most often" or "who is willing/able to deal with technical issues". Much more important, in my mind, is someone who will maintain the forums in a manner that sustains the overall 'flavor' and environment that we have become used to. I'm very, very confident that Jeff can do that (because the forum as it is was significantly influenced by Jeff's previous involvement); while I greatly appreciate icerat's technical experience and willingness to help out, I haven't seen anything to indicate how he would run the forums...he's never even been on the mod team to see how things are run.

Choice A: someone who's previously been in charge of the forums, and done a good job

Choice B: a guy who seems quite nice, and certainly committed to preserving the forums, but with no track record to speak of in terms of actually running the forums.

 

[Wolfman]

It seems Darat and Lisa have been volunteers for many years. Why bring Mr. Wagg into it at all?

How about the fact that Lisa is one of the main proponents of having Jeff do this?

Also, I can't help but note the irony of the fact that a guy who's got only 68 posts is lecturing us about involvement in the forums. Jeff made huge contributions to this forum...as I said above, much of what we value about this forum is because of the work he did here during his time with the JREF.

I'd suggest that, since you're so concerned about involvement, you look at the fact that the vast majority of people who are supporting Jeff for this role are people who've been involved for years, and have demonstrated significant loyalty to these forums. I'd think that should speak volumes.

 

[The Man]

Whew, after some fancy tricks, I've managed to log on.

Thanks for the votes of confidence, but I'm still weighing what's going on here. I'm going to talk with icerat offline to see where we're at.

Give me some time to see if I'm the right person to do this, and then evaluate what needs to be done and the best way to do it. I'm a bit shocked by all this.

As the forum is unstable, if anyone needs to communicate with me, jeff@wagg.com should work.

Another vote from me, can't knock direct experience (even bad experiences).

 

[Francesca R]

Anyway, have at it.

Thank you.

 

[Francesca R]

And what would that avail you?

It so happens that I have posted my actual identity on this site. But that was my choice.

There is no requirement for anyone else to do so. Nor should they be forced to do so.

What?

The present owner required each member's real name "because he wants to know who he is dealing with". And obviously members know the owner's (Randi) real name.

Doesn't seem a stretch to request that of a new owner. And it was provided already.

 

[barehl]

You can't debate with Twitter on 140 characters. Youtube is... not very good for discussions, etc. I get that Facebook could do the trick but it's not as well-structured as a forum, so the thread of a conversation gets lost very very quickly.

I would have to second this. I've tried having technical discussions in blogs, on Facebook, on Youtube, and in Yahoo Groups. And, I can say without any hesitation that not one of these is adequate. They are fine for trivial things like pictures of your vacation or whatever but they don't work for anything technical.

 

[iiwo]

Digital Dan,

Jeff has earned the trust of many, many forum members over the years both here and in real life. The fact that he's been less active recently does nothing to reduce his capacity to manage a forum, nor reduce my nor (I suspect) most other people's trust in him.

No one is suggesting anyone be left out, the folks here are just trying to sort out a variety of possible structures the present/future mods and admins will work with, not exclude anyone specifically. If icerat can host, and jeff or lisa or darat manage the privacy things...we already know those people, and trust them with those tasks, and would be comfortable continuing in their stewardship.

Yes, my post count is low, but I lurk a lot and know many of these fine folks in real life as well. It would do you well to learn from them the history behind their statements rather than just challenge or confront them. You probably mean well, but it comes across as naive due to your newness and lack of information.

If you take the time to get to know them, and Jeff--should he accept the challenge--I suspect you will come to trust them as well.

 

[barehl]

Well, after two days of not being able to sign in, getting new passwords assigned to me, then being told that THEY were invalid("How could they possibly be invalid, you boobies,-you just gave them to me!!"), I do the obvious thing and switch to IE...and I'm back in.

It wasn't related. I was also told for two days that I was entering the wrong password even after I reset it. I'm now logging in with the same web browser, Firefox.

 

[Klimax]

The proxy/firewall that was causing the weird problems has been turned off.

On the down side, the intermittent lag problems may came back as a result.

If you had problems like seeing avatars, clear cache, should fix them.

 

[Wolfman]

@Digital Dan:

I'm sorry, but while I understand that from your perspective Jeff may be an unknown quantity, quite frankly, you are new here, and know very little of the forum's history, or the people involved in it.

Not only does Jeff have a long history with the forum, and not only has he demonstrated his ability to run the forum in a manner that we like, but he is someone that many of us know personally. Some have met him at TAM, others on the various cruises he organizes, others in just general social circumstances. He's a known and trusted entity.

You seem to be getting upset on behalf of people like Lisa who've put so much time into these forums...yet ignoring the fact that many of those same people who've put so much time into the forums support the idea of having Jeff take charge.

I appreciate hugely the work that icerat's doing to help out in this situation; but that doesn't change that fact that we pretty much know almost nothing about him. He's never been involved with the running of this forum, at any level.

I certainly hope that, whoever eventually takes over, icerat will be part of the team involved in the transition (and I've seen nothing whatsoever to indicate that anyone expects otherwise).

There are legitimate questions as to whether, if Jeff took over the forums, they'd be a part of his current business, or set up as a separate entity...personally, I'd prefer the latter option. But as to the issue of who should take over, there are really few people with better proven credentials than Jeff.

 

[barehl]

Dispose of the Archive.

If you got rid of the archive you could host it on FreeForums.org for no cost. The archive is pretty much the only reason to spend any money on it.

 

[The Man]

It seems pretty clear that RemieV and others don't want Icerat in the picture. The other thread is suggesting handing it over to the business Mr. Wagg owns, which while perhaps not keeping someone like Lisa Simpson out of the picture is certainly not giving her or any other long suffering volunteer any measure of control.

Do you agree or disagree that enthusiasm for this forum is going to be an important factor in keeping it running through all the hours and hours of migration and ongoing fundraising, not to mention the inevitable bitching?

If you disagree, then fine. I think that's incredibly naive. Any club, which is what this is, that thrives does so because of the tireless efforts of a few.

If you agree, then please show how Mr. Wagg has demonstrated enthusiasm for the board. Seems to me he has other interests, which is fine.

And I said in another post, a brand new entity should be created. Giving it to a for-profit business like Jeff Wagg's is not a good option. It's funny that RemieV complained about privacy issues yet seems willing to hand over all this personal information to a company that markets specifically to this demographic (skeptics). That would be violating the spirit of the privacy agreement.

I don't think anyone here has disputed Icerat's technical expertise and Icerat has even not disputed Jeff as a viable administrator.

Certainly creating a separate entity (non-profit or otherwise) from their own businesses, probably goes without saying. For reasons I mentioned before.

Heck, if you're on Facebook then you've already given your personal information to a business model that's just geared to sell you crap (advertising) or failing that sell whatever information (other than that specific personal stuff) they can get from you. Even if they have to try to manipulate you (called "research" in the user agreement) to get it. Take your own chances and choices, but Jeff and Icerat, I think I can work with that.

 

[lionking]

The forum without JREF is doomed in my opinion. Very sad.

 

[Wolfman]

The forum without JREF is doomed in my opinion. Very sad.

That may be...there are certainly significant hurdles to overcome. The transition, regardless of how it's done or who takes over, will inevitably mean the loss of some members. And it's going to be more difficult to attract new members.

But I'd rather make the effort and fail, than simply give up now.

 

[asydhouse]

That may be...there are certainly significant hurdles to overcome. The transition, regardless of how it's done or who takes over, will inevitably mean the loss of some members. And it's going to be more difficult to attract new members.
But I'd rather make the effort and fail, than simply give up now.

I think the forum is the main educational resource of the JREF.

This thread has moved too swiftly for me to read all of it, but last night I saw somewhere in here someone saying (Icerat?) that even though the JREF doesn't want to be burdened with officiating the forum, they would still promote it on the JREF website, so a mutual linkage would still be there back and forth for members of the forum to visit the JREF, and for people checking out JREF to easily link to the forum.

In which case, I can't see how that would look different to the current arrangement. Only behind the scenes changes. No problem!

 

[AdMan]

I think the forum is the main educational resource of the JREF.

This thread has moved too swiftly for me to read all of it, but last night I saw somewhere in here someone saying (Icerat?) that even though the JREF doesn't want to be burdened with officiating the forum, they would still promote it on the JREF website, so a mutual linkage would still be there back and forth for members of the forum to visit the JREF, and for people checking out JREF to easily link to the forum.

In which case, I can't see how that would look different to the current arrangement. Only behind the scenes changes. No problem!

The JREF site may still link to it (for a while..?), but it won't be called the JREF forum and won't be at forums.randi.org. It will be a separate entity.

 

[arthwollipot]

It seems pretty clear that RemieV and others don't want Icerat in the picture.

I don't know how you got this idea, because it's the exact opposite of what I've seen RemieV and others saying.

 

[RemieV]

I don't know how you got this idea, because it's the exact opposite of what I've seen RemieV and others saying.

Oh, I can see where it came from. It's because when I posted about handing the forum over, I pointed out that it's against privacy laws (and the contractual obligations in the privacy policy penned by JREF) to do that. However, that's not on my behalf. I was staff at the JREF. My name is all over these forums, and I don't have anonymity here anyway. My issue is that thousands of people signed up here believing that the privacy policy was true. It isn't about whether the information is sold to a company for advertising purposes, either. People have put sensitive information about their atheism or gender identity or whatever else on this forum with the understanding that they could remain anonymous and vent their problems without it carrying over into their real lives. And this isn't hyperbole. People have posted that they believe they will be disowned, fired, divorced, etc if they tell the people in their lives their real views.

If the JREF actually DOES wipe that information if people don't opt into the switch, great. But there has been no clear answer on whether or not that is going to happen.

And, you know, I'd think that an organization with a leader who felt the need to keep his sexual orientation private for the majority of his life would understand that when you tell a secret to people you trust, it isn't cool for those people to turn around and say, "Oh, well, we're just going to pass that secret along to someone we've known for five seconds because we saw their LinkedIn."

I don't know icerat, and I'm sure that this PROBABLY IS fine - but then I have nothing to lose. And this thread is tucked away pretty damn well. The vast majority of people with accounts haven't even seen it. No - I don't think it's right to hand it over and not give those people the choice about whether or not to trust a third party who just happens to be the first person to volunteer with their information.