response 111 of 235:

Feb 13 01:25 UTC 2004

Thanks, Kip.  If I'd gone back a few responses when 47 was presented,
I'd probably have realised what you meant.

I take the defeat of your proposal, jp2, to mean that the *membership*
does NOT want the items restored.  Staff's job is to keep the system up
and running and to do want the membership wants.

response 113 of 235:

Feb 13 02:29 UTC 2004

I think the result of the vote was a bad one on principle, but I don't see
any point in challenging its legitimacy.  I do hope that should another staff
member spazz out and start killing items, Grex won't let them benefit from
their actions next time.

response 115 of 235:

Feb 21 16:36 UTC 2004

BTW, I've been experimenting with the "kill" command; it appears to work
with any number of responses by the person who created the item.

The software should follow the policy, not vice versa.  Still, I'm inclined
to draft the final language to allow an item creator to completely remove it
at any time before any other user (including the creator using a different
login id) responds to it.

response 117 of 235:

Feb 25 18:41 UTC 2004

The current state of the proposal's text is:

        An item's author, the person who originally enters an item,
        may remove that item at any time before someone responds
        to it using a different login ID.  After another person
        has responded, an item may be removed only if it poses a
        clear and present danger to the system or it clearly abets
        criminal activity.  Examples of the former include a very
        large item that attempts to fill all available disk space,
        items posted more than once or in several conferences at
        once, repetitive items and items that contain terminal
        escape sequences.  Examples of the latter include items
        that contain social security numbers or credit card numbers.
        These examples are not exhaustive; fair-witnesses and staff
        have discretion to act in the best interests of grex and
        its users in accordance with the general policy.

response 119 of 235:

Feb 25 19:50 UTC 2004

Would "delete" be clearer?

Somehow, I can't picture an author asking that the item be linked and then
deleting/removing it before someone else could respond to it.  Nonetheless,
should the author want to do so, the linked version should be removed, too.

Still, should it be desired, the author can find any linked versions with
the command

        ls -i /bbs/{conferenceName}/_{itemNumber}

which will give the inode number {inodeNumber} and then

        find /bbs -inum {inodeNumber} -print

'Twould be a good idea to freeze the item while looking for the linked
versions.

response 121 of 235:

Feb 25 20:13 UTC 2004

I still think that if Valerie had thought that item authors could NOT
delete their items, she wouldn't have removed hers.  If her items had not
been removed, there would have been no ground to consider removing jep's.
So I'm hoping to make clear the answer to the question, "Can item authors
remove their items?"  If the answer is "No," then items won't be deleted
in future.  If the answer is "Yes," then staff and fair-witnesses cannot
be excoriated for complying with and assisting authors' desires.

I don't think petitions can be prevented.  I do think we can make it
easier to refuse the petitions.  Note that the membership didn't vote
to "remove"; the membership voted to "not restore."  Some consider the
distinction slight.  I don't.

BTW, as has been pointed out before, petitioning for removal will result in
many copies of an item being made.  Freezing and retiring do not prevent
those copies from being made.

If this proposal fails, then we can look at the other questions.

response 123 of 235:

Feb 25 20:39 UTC 2004

So as smallbusiness fairwitness, I can't remove a religious spam itme that
someone enters in every conference if a twit has posted sarcastic
response?  

I also could not remove it from coop if even one person had
entered any kind of response? 

response 125 of 235:

Feb 25 23:34 UTC 2004

> I still think that if Valerie had thought that item authors could NOT
> delete their items, she wouldn't have removed hers.

I don't want to pick a scab, but I think the evidence shows the contrary,
so please don't bring up this irrelevant issue any more.

response 127 of 235:

Feb 26 01:06 UTC 2004

Yes, I read that sentence to clearly forbid me from removing such an item.
I think we are painting ouselves into a corner here trying to make explict
rules for decisions like this.  In its current formation, I'd vote no.  I'd
like fws to have better options.

response 133 of 235:

Feb 26 01:50 UTC 2004

Once the policy is in place, no vote is required to undo its violation.