I think you have a point, although I don't think there is an easy answer. If someone thinks they may get financial or other benefit (in the form of a job, better access to sort out problems, kudos, whatever) then it may inherently have some influence on them.. with something financial like a job it's more so.. often it's something intrinsic one wouldn't think about.. but I'm sure it can affect judgement... and if someone is looking for a job they may not stir the pot... but equally on the other side recruiting people who are fanatical about support (some of you realise the pun in that :-p) is hiring people who have an enthusiasm for the company and its customers.. that sounds like it makes a lot of sense to me.

As far as ballots are concerned--I wouldn't go as far as suggesting it wouldn't work.. but it's never as simple as people often think.. It also introduces "politics" into the process.

In the end, you will never have a perfect system.


seb

> One of the tests should surely be, whether it's contributed to a better than average service, and the answer is surely no?

I don't think 'average' comes into it.. Question is have they done more good than harm.. I think most people wouldn't say they've done any/much harm so ..


seb

> I think he meant owned as in belonging to...

> Who pays for the hosting of the usergroup?
This doesn't mean own/belongs... PlusNet could pay the Usergroup to buy hosting..

> Who set the rules for posting on the usergroup forums?
I would presume the usergroup so this might work against your point

> Has the usergroup ever removed anything from their site at the request of Plusnet?
Any forum which has a lot of PN posts may have removed something "at the request" of PN.. I'm fairly sure we have... (I say fairly sure as I don't recall an incident right now.. bar the main site news article which has been well documented so I won't repeat.. but if you even swear and PN tell us about it, we'd remove it).


FWIW I'm not sure the PUG can be said to be truly 'independent' of PN because of the links in place.. PlusNet could make it independent by recruiting an independent secretariat... an independently monitored ballot process with well covered election campaigns.. etc.. I'm not suggesting they should do this.. it would raise the costs..

The fact it is not entirely idependent in this way doesn't mean it can't be useful and do good things and that's what people should focus on.


seb

In reply to:

---

So it is paid for (and I presume maintained) by Plusnet [by maintained I mean they would fix/repair any physical problems with the server free of charge]

---

This is really detracting from the good debate..

And as other people have pointed out, Pipex donated us a server many years ago when discussion about Pipex was causing us load issues on our forums. I don't for a second think they received any favours in return.. (I think Carl was involved then so he can probably confirm as ex-staff :-p)


seb

> But one change to DNS and the URL could be wiped out, because it's controlled by Plusnet.
> One edit by Plusnet could kill the site etc.
> It would be better being entirely independent from Plus's corporate control.

You can set up a company limited by guarantee owned by its members who have a say in the running.. who are independent of PN.. but this poses all ends of complications/costs... Someone has to "own" the domain.. so if it's not under plusnet's domain it will be another.. and if it's not registered to Plusnet Plc it needs to be registered to someone else.

No matter what you do... if it's a PUG.. it will rely on PN support.. if PN wanted to destroy it, it could do so by withdrawing participation, funding and a range of other options.. Same applies to any ISP group of similar nature.

seb

Now that may not be true. Giving the impression of being independent can lull many customers into a false sense of security and also offers PN a front to seem as though they are really consulting/taking notice of customers when they are not.

Does it really matter though? At the end of the day I think PUG just want to help people out. I think often they're niave but I think all of this debate is way ott for really just a group of people with a bit too much time on their hands .

And kitz has revealed that Mike ('wildmind') - to whom I wish a speedy recovery - is the chairman. kitz also claims never to have seen the question asked before - although I have seen it go unanswered in various threads that PUG members have taken part in, on different forums over the past year or more.

Simon

I had always assumed Mike had said he was the chairman but didn't want to say anything until I had spoken to him.

Ian