|
Grex > Coop7 > #91: Proposals for New Conferences! (extention of Item #15) | |
|
| Author |
Message |
tsty
|
|
Proposals for New Conferences! (extention of Item #15)
| 
Aug 31 03:38 UTC 1995 |
If you want to create a new conference, just ask and it will be
created. All you need to do is ask. No complicated proposals or
voting are needed.
Before you ask, you should do a "help conf" to see the list of
available conferences. Check the list to see if your conference
already exists, or if your conference could fit into another
conference that already exists.
The cfadm (that's a cryptic abbreviation for "conference adminis-
trator") will wait a few days, for people to discuss your confer-
ence idea and make suggestions. Then, if you still want the
conference to be created, the cfadm (currently John Remmers and
me) will create the conference.
John Remmers suggested having a single item for conference propo-
sals rather than scattering the proposals around throughout the
co-op conference. Sounds OK to me! So this is The Place to put
your conference proposal. Though, if your conference proposal is
going to involve a lot of discussion, feel free to enter it as a
separate item.
|
| 136 responses total. |
popcorn
|
|
response 1 of 136:
|
Aug 31 03:43 UTC 1995 |
(Er, the "me" in the header of this item was me, Valerie. But actually
by now John and I have passed on the cfadm job to Scott Helmke and Dave
Lovelace; John and I stay on as backup cfadms. If you send mail to cfadm,
you'll reach all four of us.)
|
scott
|
|
response 2 of 136:
|
Aug 31 11:15 UTC 1995 |
And the logins for us newbie cfadms are: davel and scott, but you'll do
much better to send mail to cfadm if you want something done.
|
davel
|
|
response 3 of 136:
|
Aug 31 14:16 UTC 1995 |
Definitely! If *I* get cfadm mail addressed to *me*, I just bounce it
on to cfadm & wait for Scott to take care of it!
(My smiley key seems to be broken; lately I *have* let Scott do most of
the work. Sorry.)
|
davel
|
|
response 4 of 136:
|
Aug 31 14:28 UTC 1995 |
One other point. The policy works pretty much as stated, but if you haven't
heard anything (say) a week after you propose a conference, mail cfadm
to say whether you still want it. And understand that we can set a
conference up but we can't make sure people contribute to it. I think
that if no one at all says *anything* about your proposal, you probably
should ask yourself who will bother to participate in the conference.
One or two people have sounded rather frustrated about this aspect,
after the fact.
|
remmers
|
|
response 5 of 136:
|
Sep 1 10:28 UTC 1995 |
One other point of clarification--when you request a conference,
it's not created immediately. Some time is allowed for discussion
in this item so that other users get input into the proposal.
(Generally, 5 days to a week.)
|
tsty
|
|
response 6 of 136:
|
Sep 7 08:45 UTC 1995 |
popcorn is totally correct in #1 - she is the "me" up there in #0.
I saw 0 reasons to alter #0 .... so I didn't. Maybe I should have?
|
lilmo
|
|
response 7 of 136:
|
Sep 12 02:20 UTC 1995 |
If only newbies saw it, and ppl who have seen it so often they recognize it,
then no problem. For those in between, maybe.
Here's a different perspective: would you rather have changed it in the first
place, or gone through this discussion? *raises eyebrow*
|
tsty
|
|
response 8 of 136:
|
Sep 12 08:37 UTC 1995 |
gone through the discussion .... primarily for the reality-check and
"due credit" clause in popcorn's contract <g>.
|
lilmo
|
|
response 9 of 136:
|
Sep 13 06:19 UTC 1995 |
Well, then, there's your answer !!! :-)
|
nephi
|
|
response 10 of 136:
|
Sep 29 08:03 UTC 1995 |
We, the Editors of Grex's Newsletter, have decided that we need a conference
of our own for us to organize our most important thoughts. We decided that
a new conference wouldn't do at all. We want the conference named Grexnews.
We, in all our wisdom, have noted that the current Fair Witness has not
bothered to come to Grex in over a month and a half. In his absence, the
above mentioned conference has died from a lack of participation. We require
that the Fair Witness of the above mentioned conference be removed from his
position so that the rightful heirs may take their throne. Each of the
Editors must be given title of Fair Witness of the Grexnews conference, along
with the full powers and privileges of the position of Fair Witness. The
people to be so named shall be nephi, hross, lilmo, and mta.
Progress on this most important Newsletter cannot begin until our requirement
is met.
The Editors have spoken.
|
davel
|
|
response 11 of 136:
|
Sep 29 11:51 UTC 1995 |
Wow. The newsletter hasn't had its first issue, & already we have
hostile takeover attempts!
nephi, could you move discussion of this to an item of its own, since
this isn't a request for a *new* conference? Thanks.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 12 of 136:
|
Sep 29 14:33 UTC 1995 |
To be fair to the editorial board - grexnews wasn't set up to serve
as a grex newsletter discussion conference, but there is no reason
why it shouldn't be used that way, since it exists. It also seems
entirely appropriate for the editors to the the fws, at the very least
so everyone can see who are the editors, by reading the header. Now,
I might have gone about it differently, like asking the current fw...
but that's difficult when he's absent. All this said .. it would be
healthy to do what davel says, and address it first in an item here.
|
selena
|
|
response 13 of 136:
|
Sep 29 15:10 UTC 1995 |
Well, as it is a dead cf, it almost *is8 asking for a new one..
|
lilmo
|
|
response 14 of 136:
|
Sep 30 20:08 UTC 1995 |
Um, well, *I* wouldn't ahve put it so strongly. I, at least, am amenable to
creation of a new cf.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 15 of 136:
|
Oct 1 19:03 UTC 1995 |
(Technical nitpick with #12: The header for a conference is just a text
screen; it can list or omit any info you like. It would be quite easy
to list the newsletter editors in the login screen with a line that says
something like "newsletter editors are: curly, moe, and jane", without
needing to make them fair witnesses of the conference.)
|
nephi
|
|
response 16 of 136:
|
Oct 2 05:17 UTC 1995 |
Now don't any of you *tell* me that you didn't at least *smile* when you read
number 10!
|
rcurl
|
|
response 17 of 136:
|
Oct 2 06:18 UTC 1995 |
Re #15 - but a "missing" fw would have to do that. Still, I appreciate
the technical nitpick, and would be glad to do the same to you someday :).
|
popcorn
|
|
response 18 of 136:
|
Oct 2 12:31 UTC 1995 |
Cool -- I appreciate having my facts straight. :)
|
selena
|
|
response 19 of 136:
|
Oct 2 17:30 UTC 1995 |
Nephi.. I did.
|
kain
|
|
response 20 of 136:
|
Oct 18 01:51 UTC 1995 |
I would like tofw a fun confrence for the 1001 best ways to have fun, any
objections?
>
|
adbarr
|
|
response 21 of 136:
|
Oct 18 02:02 UTC 1995 |
kain, will you be defining "fun", or is this something that will
grow out of the conference? Like, are toddlers included? Single
parents? Cats? I like the concept as I understand it, but we may
have slightly or enormously different concepts of "fun". Maybe
1001 ways says enough?
|
selena
|
|
response 22 of 136:
|
Oct 18 04:59 UTC 1995 |
Maybe. I know fun for me is *not* fun for some others, so..
|
adbarr
|
|
response 23 of 136:
|
Oct 18 16:07 UTC 1995 |
Well, so far, as far as I can tell, we have not reached no. 1. :)
|
selena
|
|
response 24 of 136:
|
Oct 18 16:58 UTC 1995 |
Well, this isn't the "fun" cf, either.
|