Strike requests

We are on strike this week because of some grievances that have recently upset a large number of participants. We have therefore either shut down our network access, or detached from Seti, to join other projects, or shut our computers off. The strike officially began at 00:00 UTC June 5th, 2006 and will end at 00:00 UTC June 12th, 2006. It should be pointed out that participation in this strike is entirely VOLUNTARY, and no one is being forced to participate, and we respect the opinion of those individuals who choose not to participate. We have tried to voice our concerns about these issues in the past, but we were flamed by some participants, and ignored by the project management. The intention of this strike is to show that there are more than just a select few who have issues with the direction our beloved project is being steered, and to gain the attention of the project management, who may not realize what has been transpiring, because they are busy with other matters. It is our love for this project that compels us to take action. Keep in mind that these are simply REQUESTS, and not DEMANDS, and that this action is intended solely to make the project management aware that these issues exist, and need to be addressed.

The grievances we would request to be addressed are as follows:

1.) Crunch3r, who has been instrumental in developing optimized applications for Seti and Seti Enhanced, was accused of cheating by some of the forum members, and had also sent Eric Korpela an email with a list of C++ errors in the standard Seti Enhanced application, that were eliminated when he built version of the Enhanced application WITHOUT optimization. Eric had denied receiving this email, and even went so far as to call Crunch3r a LIAR. Crunch3r sent this email to Eric TWICE, and has proof that Eric received the second email. Thus, Crunch3r has left the project, and is no longer working to develop Seti code any further. This alienation and vilification of this project's top contributors needs to stop. Eric has since made an apology, but it is buried deep in one of the threads. We request that Eric issue this apology in a new "Sticky" thread, and that the thread be reserved for a dialog between Eric and Crunch3r to work out their differences. Crunch3r has done SO MUCH for this project, and his loss hurts EVERYONE. All effort should be made to reenlist Crunch3r's help to get the Enhanced application working for EVERYONE.

2.) The application errors in the code are causing countless hours of wasted CPU cycles. The application crashes out or gets -9 overflow errors MANY hours into workunit processing. This results in no credit being granted at ALL for such workunits. Thus, we request an application that does not waste our CPU cycles by going into a seemingly endless loop.

3.) There have been many discussions on what is "Fair Credit" for the work we perform. Since credit IS important to a large number of participants, we request that this situation be investigated sooner, rather than later. Perhaps looking into a system that takes into consideration the TOTAL amount of work done, and not just the FPOPS.

4.) Being as that "some" of the forum moderators are doing more to feed the flames rather than to help extinguish them, we request perhaps a complete sweep of the forum mods with all mods elected by forum members.

These requests, along with the strike, are an attempt to elicit changes that will make Seti a fun project in which to participate once again. We have lost FAR too many valuable participants already. People such as Paul D. Buck, of BOINC Wiki fame, and now Crunch3r, a most valued application optimizer, as well as MANY regular project participants. If these points are not addressed, it could spell the end of the Flagship Distributed Computing project. Thank you for your time.

Regards, Daniel.
____________

I'm a cruncher and I approve this message.
____________
I'm not in it for the science...only the competition.

I'm behind you and these requests, Daniel.

Please, we just ask to truly be heard, understood and action taken. I'm tired of flame wars and words of ill will.

PS - As to credits, why can't we do as was done at the end of SETI Classic? Note our contributions on our stats page and start fresh with SETI Enhanced credits. Except for the zero credit problem, this might please most people.

Very nicely worded, Daniel, and with reasonable requests, too. What is rather bothersome is the portrayal that a lot of people are on "strike" when in truth they have only suspended network and continue to crunch as usual from their cache. Like you, perhaps?

Indeed, most of the team members you crunch with are still fully online - like Jim Vennes, finrod, Dither, MJS and the other top SETI.USA members with "visible" computers - and it seems rather disingenuous to portray this activity as being a major service interruption.

Make no mistake, I agree there are issues that need to be resolved and your points are well made, but you speak for a very small (yet strident) minority rather than for the masses.


Respectfully,

Howard Clayton

Very nicely worded, Daniel, and with reasonable requests, too. What is rather bothersome is the portrayal that a lot of people are on "strike" when in truth they have only suspended network and continue to crunch as usual from their cache. Like you, perhaps?

Indeed, most of the team members you crunch with are still fully online - like Jim Vennes, finrod, Dither, MJS and the other top SETI.USA members with "visible" computers - and it seems rather disingenuous to portray this activity as being a major service interruption.

Make no mistake, I agree there are issues that need to be resolved and your points are well made, but you speak for a very small (yet strident) minority rather than for the masses.


Respectfully,

Howard Clayton

As I saw things during talks of a strike, people were being encourage to participate in whatever way they saw fit. As Daniel said, some people stopped crunching SETI altogether by either shutting down their systems or by attaching to other projects. Some are even still crunching but with their network access turned off (me for instance). "In whatever way a person sees fit". Very key. To know who supports the strike and who does not and to know in what way they express their support would require talking to every member.

I do believe that no one on strike wants to hurt this project. However, some attention needs to be paid to project contributors and the problems they perceive.

Very well said - Daniel. I'm behind your request ;-)

As to your point #2: It has become a huge problem with "client errors". Look here:
http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/results.php?userid=13917&offset=60

I'm not at strike thou - yet ;-)

Kiva

____________
Greetings from Norway

Crunch3er & AK-V8 Inside

Very nicely worded, Daniel, and with reasonable requests, too. What is rather bothersome is the portrayal that a lot of people are on "strike" when in truth they have only suspended network and continue to crunch as usual from their cache. Like you, perhaps?

Indeed, most of the team members you crunch with are still fully online - like Jim Vennes, finrod, Dither, MJS and the other top SETI.USA members with "visible" computers - and it seems rather disingenuous to portray this activity as being a major service interruption.

Make no mistake, I agree there are issues that need to be resolved and your points are well made, but you speak for a very small (yet strident) minority rather than for the masses.


Respectfully,

Howard Clayton

Very well said - Daniel. I'm behind your request ;-)

As to your point #2: It has become a huge problem with "client errors". Look here:
http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/results.php?userid=13917&offset=60

I'm not at strike thou - yet ;-)

Kiva

Out of curiosity, how many of the four demands/requests need to be acceded to in order to end the strike. All four, three out of the four...?

Is there any single issue that if not addressed would supercede the others?

3.) There have been many discussions on what is "Fair Credit" for the work we perform. Since credit IS important to a large number of participants, we request that this situation be investigated sooner, rather than later. Perhaps looking into a system that takes into consideration the TOTAL amount of work done, and not just the FPOPS.