Anyone who's been reading the club's Internet newsgroups over the past month or so will have seen a great deal of concern and confusion over the group's policies and responses.

A good deal of it seems to spring from apparent misunderstandings, well-intentioned but perhaps too vigorous defence of volunteers, and poor communications. I'd like to attempt to clear up some of those misunderstandings.

The committee does not discourage, has never discouraged, nor indeed, I hope, will ever discourage, comments or criticism of any of our services. In fact, it actively seeks feedback. If members cannot comment on our performance and policies, how are we to learn of our mistakes and rectify them? How will we identify missed opportunities?

However, we would prefer that these comments be expressed in a constructive way, rather than an outpouring of rage and frustration in a public forum. Often simply asking a question is the most effective way of raising an issue. Even more effective is to send a private e-mail, fax, or letter to the committee, rather than causing what may well be unnecessary public alarm.

If the committee fails to provide an acceptable response, then the member clearly has the right to raise the matter in public. Often that can be done with a remarkable degree of politeness, within the accepted modes of public discourse. While a public rant undoubtedly does the ranter a power of good, all too frequently the attack proves to have been founded on confused thinking or false information, or alternatively causes unnecessary hostility and defensiveness. It frequently attracts equal, if not more vehement responses, and before we know it, the prairie is joyously ablaze.

Members have to realise that this club has to be particularly careful about its communications. Most organisations can survive idle gossip, indiscriminate attacks and unfounded accusations because such remarks are confined by the laws of proximity. In a club where around 8000 members are on the BBS, and 3500 on the Internet, everything anyone cares to post is immediately broadcast indiscriminately, including a great deal of misinformation and unwarranted abuse. The results can be unbelievably destructive.

We will not, therefore, tolerate personal abuse directed at club volunteers. I have publicly outlined that policy in the club's magazine, and have repeated it several times in our various forums. Each time, I have taken considerable care to emphasise that that stance does not preclude criticism of our activities. Regrettably, as I've discovered after 34 years of journalism and broadcasting, despite the most precise use of language, some people can totally misinterpret the most apparently unambiguous remarks.

Some members apparently continue to be unable to make the necessary distinctions from my comments, so let me attempt a further clarification: We welcome comments on our performance and our activities. We do not permit public abuse of volunteers. It seems a simple distinction to me, but if anyone cannot understand the difference, I am perfectly happy to attempt a fuller explanation. The intention is that we should be tough on the issues, but very soft indeed on the people. And that includes all people - not just volunteers. Members who constructively air their comments without resorting to personal abuse are not "whingers." They are doing a valuable service to the group.

The club's machinery for handling any breach of the policy I've outlined above is, in my opinion, unsatisfactory. Ultimately the committee has the right to expel a member, but in many cases that seems draconian, and the process of complaint, defence, action, appeal and resolution requires special meetings of the committee and the club, and a two-thirds majority of all members present. Frankly, that's absurd.

Rather than being forced to crack our walnuts with a steam-driven pile-driver, at the end of July I asked George Skarbek, a sane and sober voice within this group, to chair and create what at this point we'll call a rules and conduct subcommittee. I've asked George to find two other members to join him on that committee.
It is my intention that that subcommittee will formulate rules of conduct, and devise a scale of appropriate penalties for breaches. It will hear and decide all complaints. Those actions should, I suggest, be open to review by the committee, but that can be decided at a meeting of the club to which George's recommendations will be presented for approval and insertion in the rules.

It goes without saying that there are some forms of comment that are outside the authority of that subcommittee. The committee must act immediately where it sees a potential for defamation proceedings, so any member who treads into that territory is virtually guaranteed to lose, at least temporarily, access to all our electronic services. Members posting to the BBS or the Internet would be very wise indeed to gain an understanding of the laws and penalties for defamatory statements.

We have seen considerable improvement in our Internet service with a dramatic increase in bandwidth and numbers of modems. More is to come. By the time you read this, another 20 modems should have been added, and those numbers will again be increased immediately Telstra provides us with additional lines - contingent on their bringing a fibre-optic cable into the building, where we have apparently exhausted all cable capacity.

I had hoped that the additional resources would resolve all our problems with the Internet. But clearly, some remain. Over the past few weeks I have become personally involved with the comms team to ensure that these outstanding issues are addressed as quickly as possible. The committee will not be satisfied until the system is stable, and members have an acceptable degree of access. We are clearly not yet at that point.

Some members have experienced problems which may have been caused either by the annexes or our timer program prematurely terminating calls, and we have had all hands on deck investigating and resolving that, and several other issues, including mail and news services.

The committee has again retained the services of Jason Lee who was previously employed as a part-time professional consultant, and he has already made good progress. Several problems were fixed in the week preceding the writing of this report. Continued improvements can be expected.

We are already engaged in moving the more critical elements of the service from our least reliable machine - a 486 PC - to the much more expensive, and far more stable Suns. We are completing investigations on the specs for a 200 MHz Pentium Pro with 128 MB of RAM and four 4 GB fast-wide SCSI drives to handle the Web caching, and assuming the committee approves that strategy, you can expect to feel your hair flying in the breeze.

One thing we have been forced to accept: we have reached a point where we cannot rely solely on volunteers for delivery of an acceptable level of service. The Internet is a highly complex environment, and we need the input of highly-skilled professionals.

In a previous update to you, I predicted that the integration of volunteers and professional staff was likely to require a degree of adjustment. I think it's perhaps timely to remind members of that potential for conflict, and to call for patience and persistence as we embrace what is an essential stage in the development of this club.

We must somehow remain open to accepting new levels of expertise, different attitudes and approaches. Although at times issues may arise which can lead to a great deal of sensitivity, at heart they are relatively simple management issues, and they will be resolved by the committee and our new chief executive, John Young, with, I trust, the participation and good will of all volunteers.

I've previously mentioned George Skarbek, who is no stranger to members who attend our monthly meetings, and have gained so much from his Random Access sessions. A couple of years ago, when I was computer editor of The Age, I talked George into writing a question and answer column every Tuesday. It quickly became one of the most popular features of Computer Age.

Many of those answers have now been published in book form, and they represent an invaluable resource for anyone dealing with computers, at every level. I'm delighted to report that you'll be able to buy that book through the office, at a special rate of $10, which includes packaging and postage. I highly recommend it.

Reprinted from the September 1996 issue of PC Update, the magazine of Melbourne PC User Group, Australia