New CSC Rep

It has been announced that another individual who is both a moderator on the plus net forums and a PUGger has now joined the CSC team. Obviously, congratulations go to Mark for making the jump and the best of luck to him in his new role.

Clearly, an individual's right to choose his or her employer isn't something that is in question and not something to be open to scrutiny here.

However, given that this is the second time this has happened in as many months, I am interested in views as to how this reflects on the PUG in particular. Does it not undermine their claimed independence when it seems that joining the user group, (which is there supposedly to be the beady eye of the customer watching over the internal "voice of the customer") is actually now an established route for getting a job at Plus Net towers? It seems to me that it can't inspire any confidence in the group which continues to struggle for credibility, despite being 2 years and 2 days old today.

An alternative viewpoint is that it's a positive thing for Plus Net to be employing people who are closer to customers. However, it all feels a bit too close for comfort to me.

Given that membership at the top table of PUG remains entirely undemocratic and is maintained through self selection, PUG leaders are entirely unaccountable to plus net customers. (We don't even know who the chariman of PUG is, although we do know that there is one.) If membership were through a ballotted process, one question I would feel justified in asking at the hustings would be whether the candidate member could foresee any circumstances in which he or she might seek to be employed at plus net. It would then avoid these apparent conflict of interest issues arising at any later date.

My only thoughts on that matter are can the PUG effectively create 'jobs for the boys'?

If Plusnet employ from the PUG, and the PUG decide who's on the PUG, the PUG & Plusnet are effectively :

a) Trialing possible employees for Plusnet

b) Ensuring that other potential employees from other sources get less of a chance as they've not been vetted, either for skills or for their opinions.

Frankly if I were on the PUG, I wouldn't try to join Plusnet as an employee. Too political for me personally.


All that aside, one wishes the best of luck to all concerned.

In reply to:

---

If Plusnet employ from the PUG, and the PUG decide who's on the PUG, the PUG & Plusnet are effectively :

a) Trialing possible employees for Plusnet

---

Possibly, and it does once again remind me of PlusnetUserGroups status as supposedly independent not necessarily being strictly true - there is clearly a lot of insider communication, and I don't doubt some of it is controlled by Plusnet before it goes to the community at large.

Seeing members of said group joining Plusnet now, it blurs that line further.

In reply to:

---

Clearly, an individual's right to choose his or her employer isn't something that is in question and not something to be open to scrutiny here.

---

That should include speculation regarding an individuals motives/integrity and the like. Whilst a debate on the general issue can be valid posters should be careful not to imply a guilt by association just because a person is employed by an ISP for which they have poor regard.

As before, whilst not knowing this person from Adam I wish him all the best starting a new job. One more taxpayer helping to fund the pension for the oh so deserving older generation.

Slightly OT but why do Plusnet customers need to have a PUG anyway? Has it helped to protect customers any better than posts on forums such as this and the official Plusnet one?

Surely if the ISP were doing its job and keeping customers informed through formal channels there would be no need for it.

I've been with a few ISP's before and never seen any unofficial user groups. If I have a problem with my ISP I go straight on the official message board like everyone else and debate it with the staff there. I wouldn't want it any other way.

In reply to:

---

Slightly OT but why do Plusnet customers need to have a PUG anyway?

---

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

I do often wonder...

It seems like an unofficial, but semi-controlled zone...

Plusnet blatantly use it to push "good news" to consumers without doing it themselves.

They themselves often refer to information on the usergroup site (which is a sub domain of plus' own corporate domains), and so on.

It's almost a distant, but not too distant marketing/information dispatch department for Plus. It is very unique, and very odd. But yes, the value of it is somewhat doubtful.

In reply to:

---

Seeing members of said group joining Plusnet now, it blurs that line further.

---

The Usergroup FAQ, which was last updated on 1/6/06 states:

"A new structure is being put in place that in the future will allow for elections and formal participation at different levels.

I think open elections would go some way to erase concerns about PUG's independence, and whilst I don't think that being elected to PUG should necessarily disqualify somebody from being subsequently employed by Plusnet, a candidate undertaking not to subsequently take-up employment with Plusnet, might gain favour with some electors, in my opinion.

It's difficult to deny though, that ultimately Plusnet have the right to operate PUG how they like, and provided they follow employment legislation, the same goes for who they choose to employ.

Can I just perhaps point out something here that seems to have been overlooked.

1) Both Mark and Liam were forum moderators first.
2) Both were moderators that had been voted in by Plusnet customers on the portal forums.

The two people under discussion in this thread that recently became members of staff werent in PUG when it was originally formed, and...
3) joined PUG after their election by Plusnet Users.

Perhaps it would be useful for PlusNet to take onboard people who already have devoted a huge amount of their own personal time trying to help PlusNet customers?

Both of these people have technical experience in some way or other and an obvious interest and knowledge of adsl. Also as Plusnet customers they will have experienced the frustrations of customers over the past year and therefore be in a situation to understand what its like on the outside.


>> "A new structure is being put in place that in the future will allow for elections and formal participation at different levels

Within the past few weeks we have asked for volunteers to help within PUG.


and no I havent applied for a job at PN, nor am I thinking of doing so

Edited by kitz (Fri 06-Oct-06 11:09:37)

some folks seem to parade it as some sort of scrutinising eye - thus portraying it as a good thing.

in reality it seems to me that its little more than a thinly veiled PR department. cant really see the use of it myself. if it was totally independent then fine but this clearly isn't so it's worth is hard to spot.

If a "user group" can be disbanded by a vote of users then it is unquestionaly an independent user group. If it can only be disbanded by PlusNet it is unquestionably a PlusNet tool.

Simon

I think it makes great sense for PlusNet to recruit from the PUG or forums. For all the criticism that has, from time to time, been levelled at the two people you refer to, I do believe that customers will benefit more from their recruitment to PN than from recruits who have no prior experience of the company and its service. So, even though I have questioned the actions and loyalties of both these PUG members in recent months, I am 100% in favour of their recruitment by PlusNet as customers can't help but derive benefit from it.

The value, independence and constitution of the PUG is a different debate. As I posted further down, if customers can't vote to get rid of the PUG then it must be a PlusNet tool - and should be viewed as such.

Simon

It is an odd mix, because both also magaement at Plusnetters forum.

Now either they are recruiting people who are familiar with PN or calls all these forums inwhich PN do post into question.

Perhaps it really means no jobs for mods on AG at PN, the PN staff don't post here or control here;-)

Perhaps these are the fantastic things which IW promised in the couple of weeks after speaking to soundsystem.

>Perhaps it really means no jobs for mods on AG at PN

Want me to test the new ageist legislation on them eh?

You would still probably fall foul of their wageist discrimination. Companies who pay wages that no-one with a family and mortgage could live on are practising ageism by another name.

Simon

"Want me to test the new ageist legislation on them eh?"

Eh, I didn't know they did not take people like you and I, under 21's ;-)

I'm quite sure that if an AG mod had good knowledge of the Plusnet systems and skills suitable for a job at Plusnet they would be welcomed with open arms.

Don't forget that some time ago Phil Richardson made a similar move - I can't remember it being an issue then.

It may suprise you to know that the customers we have asked openly on the PUG forum don't want to get rid of PUG.

Ian

You read it here first.

Well, since you can spend half your life waiting for Plusnet to answer the phones and they are hardly ever on their own forums these days, and long since left here, customers don't have anywhere else to go to get some answers.

That wasn't my point. Imagine that they had voted to get rid of PUG - no dice! Only PlusNet can disband the PUG. That's because it's a PlusNet tool - owned and run by PlusNet for PlusNet's benefit.

Simon

There's only one word to say to that and I can't as it wouldn't get past the swear filter. Open your eyes Simon,some people actually find Plusnet a good ISP.

Ian

You seem to be avoiding the point again, Ian - which is that the PUG is owned and controlled by PlusNet, not by users.

Not only that but you imply I said something which I did not. Which part of my post said that PlusNet were a bad (or good) ISP?

Simon

The thing i find hard to believe is why are people so set against the PUG, If it even helps one person then to me its worth it.Who cares to what relation it has to +net, as long as it helps people.
I applaud anyone who works for nothing to help others.

I don't see that anyone is explicitly set against it, more that people are questioning the purpose and independence of what seems to be an arbitrarily chosen group of people who represent Plusnet users but don't appear to have been chosen by Plusnet users (maybe I've got that totally wrong?).

I'm not suggesting it's a bad idea, but it does seem an odd arrangement for a "Users Group". Then again to me personally as an "outsider" it seems odd that an ISP needs its own Users Group.

Ian,

Who is the chairman of the PUG? If it is currently vacant, who was the last chairman?

Complete rubbish, it is not owned by Plusnet at all. I would have thought you would get your facts correct as you seem to know so much about the law.

Ian

Chairman role is not vacant. The chairman is currently ill at the moment so don't want to publish his/her name until they recover.

Ian

So put me right. Who owns it? Who has the power to shut it down? Do you?

Simon

How will we know when he/she has recovered?

Simon

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

Who pays for the hosting of the usergroup?
Who set the rules for posting on the usergroup forums?
Has the usergroup ever removed anything from their site at the request of Plusnet?

Ignoring the law for the moment who does own PUG? It is PN who supply the hardware, the website, forum and bandwidth. They are the ones who chose the members from their list of customers. It is in their power to disband it at a stroke. They have the power to dismiss people from the group. Is it therefore not true that they own and run it?

It is true that all the members could resign from their positions but that still wouldn't disband the group because PN would still have the power to put new people into various positions.

In all honesty I don't care who or how the PUG are run, but your post is extremely defensive and is trying to portray that you are an independent group when it is anything but.

Whether the Chairman is ill or not should also make no difference to the disclosure of their name. The person is still considered the Chairman and been put or elected into that role and hence should be accountable. If you can't provide his/her name then provide the name of the acting chairman.

Why does the PUG play the cloak and daggers game? As you and others have repeatedly said - it is only an ISP at the end of the day and not the end of the world so why this secrecy.

As a comparison, here's a short history of Freedom2support.net which is the self elected User Group for the F2S ISP.

Can Ian safely say that they are similar in the way that they operate?

<Quote>

On this page you will learn about the history of our website, along with why we are here, our mission statement and how we were formed.

In the Beginning

Freedom2Support was first thought of in April 2002 by Justin Johnson when after discussion with several users on ADSLGuide, he thought such a site would benefit freedom2surf customers. In the initial planning stages of the site, Justin set up a web page where users could register their interest in the site, to asses whether there was enough demand for such a site.

After having encouraging feedback from freedom2surf customers who were interested in such a site Justin then put these plans into action and invited several prominent members of the freedom2surf user base to join the Freedom2Support Team which would later handle the running of the website.

The name Freedom2Support was then decided to be used, after checking with freedom2surf that this name was okay and would not cause any confusion into thinking we were an official freedom2surf site, the domain was registered, and work on the site started to begin. Launch day for Freedom2Support was 17th May 2002, with a lot of promising feedback being received on opening day.

The Place to Be

Since the start of our website we've worked hard to improve the website and expand our offerings as the freedom2surf user base and product range has expanded. We've invested in new scripts where we feel they will help the running and end user experience of the website and will continue to do so for the life of Freedom2Support.

Our website is now recognised by a large section of the freedom2surf user base as the place to go for all the latest freedom2surf news and views. Our News Mailing list continues to grow at at least 25 users per week and our forums have thousands of regular users with almost 25,000 posts.

Despite Freedom2Support not being officially connected with freedom2surf, representatives from the ISP do post on our forums to give our users updates, and help out users along with the rest of the community.

Community First

We've had a few offers for our website and offers of free hosting in exchange for banners, along with members of the Freedom2Support Team being approached to help another ISP out at their own support site due to the success of our website thanks to the outstanding work the team has put in over the years.

All such offers from companies and individuals have been turned down however. We've always, and will always continue to put Freedom2Support and freedom2surf users before anything. We have a strict policy of no advertising on Freedom2Support, and this will always be stuck to. To put it simply, we're not interested in making financial gains from the website.

</Quote>

Text taken from http://www.freedom2support.net/about/

What business is it of yours anyway. You are not a member of PUG. You are not eligible to be represent by PUG.

Hi

I was not in the least surprised that mark joined plusnet , even though i remember him stating that he had not intention of working for plusnet etc ,
And his heavy handed approach on the portal forum when he became a mod there.
So all i can say dont listen to a word most of the mods say on the portal , as clearly shown they are the ones with a agenda..
To be honest i wont even wish him good luck in the job..

Edited by sattaff (Sat 07-Oct-06 18:49:30)

Its hosted on a separate server at PN called usertools.

Both the PUG site and its sister site UserTools (content of which is also all run by PN customers not PN as people often wrongly assume). Both are run by the users for the users.

afaik PN gave this server over to the customers several years ago.. and its the one where all the stuff like customer tutorials and the exchange checker (again a tool written by PN customers) resides.

A few customers have access to change content etc - but afaik the main person in charge of it is Colin since hes the one with the most knowledge on that side of things.

These 2 sites get a hell of a lot of hits per day and to host the site and content ourselves would cost an arm and a leg.

PUG did discuss the possibility of hosting elsewhere.. but the costs were far too high because of the traffic the sites generate.
I personally dont know the ins and outs of this side of things because its not something I get involved in... but PUG members devote a huge amount of their own personal time, are they also supposed to dig very deep into their own personal pockets too.

IMHO its no different to the fact that idnetters is hosted on an idnet server, dslzone is sponsored by xifos and ace.. or even the fact that pipex gave adslguide a server many years ago. This site also has to carry ads for various ISPs to keep it going.


>> Who set the rules for posting on the usergroup forums?

PUG members did without any input in anyway from the PN staff. PUG are totally responsible for maintaining the site.. and PN staff have no control over the site input, nor are any PN staff moderators. In fact PUG admin has to authorise PN staff as "staff" before they can even have access.

>> Has the usergroup ever removed anything from their site at the request of Plusnet?

I was about to say no... (remembers the capacity report).
But... yes there was once..
That was tiscali LLU list, it was removed after it was found out to be wrong, and tiscali threw a wobbly.
Yes I know for a fact that it was wrong.. and the list that is now shown elsewhere is still wrong and misleading and cannot be relied on.
Take for eg my neighbouring exchange, Cleveleys is NOT tiscali LLU enabled despite being on that list for many months. It is tiscali datastream enabled though.

In reply to:

---

Open your eyes Simon,some people actually find Plusnet a good ISP.

---

Unfortunately for Plusnet, in ever declining numbers it seems:
http://www.adslguide.org.uk/isps/compare.asp?aol=ON&bt=ON&plusnet=ON&tiscali=ON&cmp_action=Compare

and the even starker reality
http://www.adslguide.org.uk/isps/compare.asp?ndo=ON&plusnet=ON&zen=ON&cmp_action=Compare

Edited by lodge (Sat 07-Oct-06 20:50:55)

>> the website, forum ... etc

No they dont.. afaik web site content and forum come primarily under the control of colin and mike. I think a couple of the tutorial team members may have had some access.. and Liam had some sort of access for a while (now removed).

>> They have the power to dismiss people from the group.

Nope.
Dismissal is laid out in the constitution under section 3.
Dissolution of PUG is also laid out under section 8
http://usergroup.plus.net/constitution.php

tbh if they did do something like that and dismissed or disbanded anyone or PUG.. dont you think that would hit this forum.. Then that would really give someone something in these particular forums something to talk about. :/

Also if there ever should be something that I felt should be brought to the attention of the users, and PN did try to stop it, then I would quite happily host it on my own site.
- Remember capacity... I provided those figures for a long time from my site.
and yes whilst my site may be hosted on PN at present.. this wouldn't stop me moving it elsewhere if I needed.
I'm also sure theres plenty of other sites that would probably host something juicy anyhow.
Therefore PN would not be doing themselves any favours if they did try to restrict us.

There is no great secrecy, Ive explained things as best as I can what I know.. although there are such things which we do get involved in which are NDA'd such as testing of new platforms, tools, and occasionally may get told of products before they are to be announced to the general public.

Yes some of us may have originally been chosen to form PUG by Ian Wild.. but PN regs at the time will possible remember that those that were asked, were the ones that were most often in here and the portal forums devoting their own time to helping other users anyhow, and often had some form of technical knowledge or background.

I hardly think I was chosen because I was very vocal about them lighting more capacity... or about my comments on how all PN customers should be advised of the reduction in costs. Believe it or not I was in here harping on about this long before pr100 took over. I even managed to get a sticky up in here advising customers to downgrade to the

Me thinks the Tiscali LLU list had 'planned' exchanges on it and that is why they got the hump.

Must admit thats what I thought at first too.

However,
Take for eg Cleveleys which was marked down on that list as already enabled
or even my own exchange which was marked as not yet enabled but due 01/05/2006
Neither of them are tiscali LLU enabled yet..

I just picked another - (cause its where a relative lives and I know the phone no) -
Cheltenham.. which also doesnt appear to be enabled either despite that being on the list too.

Then take Luton which is tiscali LLU enabled, yet it doesnt appear on the list at samknows.

Well I know of exchanges that were not LLU enabled that were on the list and went into build some months later. Just after the time well known comms firm A&N Other dug in some fibre tubes come to think of it

Just to stay on topic. Well done on your promotion, Mark, and don't forget to sign up. I think the CWU South Yorkshire Branch covers professional broadband workers in Sheffield.

Edited by deleted (Sat 07-Oct-06 23:13:21)

In reply to:

---

They are the ones who chose the members from their list of customers.

---

Not long before I resigned from PUG we recruited some new members. There was a lot of discussion by the existing customer members of PUG around trying to balance the members around the three ISP's, residential or business, where they were usually found (AG, portal forums or Usenet).

I cannot remember a single comment by any member of Plusnet staff Indeed I know exactly what sort of reaction there would have been if they had tried to interfere.

Yes they invited the original founding members, but they made it very clear that they wanted us to be as independant as possible ASAP.

Thanks for that but neither you nor Ian have attempted to answer my question. I'll simplify it. Which of the following has the authority to close down the PUG:

a) PlusNet customers
b) P|UG members
c) PlusNet plc?

Simon

It is also worth pointing out, for clarity - that some of plusnet's own staff have access to the usertools server.

I agree with your comments.

All of this looks so familiar... another golden chance to knock Plusnet, for any obscure reason by the same regular people on this Forum, who clearly have nothing better to do than spend most of their spare time on here, attempting to put down an ISP, when most are not even customers of that same ISP.

No doubt the usual " fanboy " and other attributes will be targeted at me, do I care?

I wish the new member of staff at Plusnet, all the very best.

I certainly did try and attempt to answer your question..

In reply to:

---

Dissolution of PUG is also laid out under section 8
http://usergroup.plus.net/constitution.php

---

tbh I really cant understand why you keep going over the same thing or why its such of an interest to you, nor why we have to keep justifying ourselves to you for what we do.

but to clarify and make it 100% clear

NO Plusnet plc do not have the authority to close it down

Admittedly it would not be as useful to PN customers if there wasnt any interaction from the staff... and conversely it wouldnt be serving the customers if no-one visited, nor were we able to help anyone.

Can you imagine how it would backfire on them if they did try and restrict something.. or even if they took the box away... or tried to delete content
but then again I already covered that in my post above too..

The site and content has been written by PlusNet customers, the forums were set up by PlusNet customers, the forum is managed by PlusNet customers, Plusnet staff do not have access to the content, nor do they write site content, nor do they have the authority to post content to the PUG site only PUG admin. Plusnet staff do not tell us what we can and cant write, nor do they write content.

Again if they did do something and overrule what we have done... it would soon become obvious elsewhere because the members would simply take the info elsewhere.

Its so very easy isnt it to keep picking away at something, and critise what others do.
If someone thinks they can do a better job... go set up your own site and try do something.
See if you can do it any better... then you may have earned the right to keep picking away and trying to wear people down, who have put an awful lot of personal time and effort into something.

and now Im also beginning to sound like a stuck record, because Ive honestly answered you to the best of my ability and Im not going to go round and round and round and round in circles repeating myself.

I certainly did try and attempt to answer your question..
-----
You certainly did - and I apologise for missing your previous post which you quote from (albeit, it was not a reply to a post of mine). Thank you for your further clarification which is direct and unambiguous. If other PUG members were as direct in their replies to various questions then I suspect that there would never be any "stuck records".

I know for example that various PUG members have been asked over many months for the name of the PUG Chairman - and no answer has ever been given. Can you explain the need for such evasiveness?

Simon

In reply to:

---

These 2 sites get a hell of a lot of hits per day and to host the site and content ourselves would cost an arm and a leg.

PUG did discuss the possibility of hosting elsewhere.. but the costs were far too high because of the traffic the sites generate.

---

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]

How then is the usergroup financed -- Your own constitution (section 5

Can you explain why you need to know ..being a non customer and all?

Arguing for the sake of it? In my view it makes it hard for you to pick on an individual ..and in this current climate .. this can only be good. If it spoils the anit brigades funs thats fine by me.

Edited by onlyme2 (Sun 08-Oct-06 11:43:54)

Hear ..hear.. I once held pr100 ( Simon ) in high esteem, however it is clearly evident that he, and many others, the majority not even being Plusnet Customers, just come on here now to continue what can best be described as a vendetta against anything and everything Plusnet.

Great shame.

In reply to:

---

NO Plusnet plc do not have the authority to close it down

---

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.

Can you explain why you need to know ..being a non customer and all?
-----
I was picking up on a question which has been asked by Channel and others many times; since it has never been answered, I'm curious as to the reason why. Customers don't have the exclusive rights on curiosity.
-----
Arguing for the sake of it?
-----
It's a PlusNet trait to describe a question as an argument, or even as abuse.
-----
In my view it makes it hard for you to pick on an individual ..and in this current climate .. this can only be good. If it spoils the anit brigades funs thats fine by me.
-----
Another PlusNet-style confusion. Very few individuals (except me) ever get "picked on" here. Institutions get criticised. Policies get criticised. Departments get criticised. 'Management' get criticised. I did criticise Liam once for writing PlusNet spin in place of facts in a PUG article. Perhaps that's the "individual" you are referring to...?

Simon

Much ado about nothing ... obviously ... to any rational person. Assume consipracies everywhere for some folk. Now would you believe this was an ISP and not a government department of the former USSR? Some folk need a reality check!

In reply to:

---

Can you explain why you need to know ..being a non customer and all?

---

Fine. I am a paying customer and all... who is the chairman of PUG?

I was picking up on a question which has been asked by Channel and others many times; since it has never been answered, I'm curious as to the reason why. Customers don't have the exclusive rights on curiosity. No ... but rational folk would ask why you believe this important enough to be pressing when you have been told the reason why the information has not been provided at this time??
-----
It's a PlusNet trait to describe a question as an argument, or even as abuse.

Is it? Weird .. most folk can see an arguement a mile off .. but then you seem to hang on particular phrases .. must be something to do with your PR thing.
......
-----
Another PlusNet-style confusion. Very few individuals (except me) ever get "picked on" here. Institutions get criticised. Policies get criticised. Departments get criticised. 'Management' get criticised. I did criticise Liam once for writing PlusNet spin in place of facts in a PUG article. Perhaps that's the "individual" you are referring to...? .
How come everything for you everything is PLUSNET STYLE??? You really should get out more! First Plusnet .. now they have gone from here .. next PUG because thats all thats left .. What next?? The Tea Lady because she has plusnet sympathies?

Sometimes this place takes itself so seriously that you have to wonder whether counselling would be appropriate!

If you have the burning need to know.. go ask them on the PUG site.

In reply to:

---

Now would you believe this was an ISP and not a government department of the former USSR? Some folk need a reality check!

---

So why defend them???, are they not big enough to look after themselves???, include yourself in the reality check.

Ahhhhh another non customer .. funny how they all flock together.

Rumour has it, they have left the fish in the tanks unnattended.. tch..tch.. oops shouldn't have mentioned that, it could start another Plusnet bashing debate.

" The Tea Lady because she has plusnet sympathies? "

ROFL.

I've done that, in the thread where you will find various people disparaging this site and it's members. Let's see where it gets us.

http://usergroup.plus.net/forum/index.php/topic,3459.0.html

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