|
Grex > Coop13 > #111: A Proposal to Clarify Grex's Stance on Deleting Items | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 235 responses total. |
gelinas
|
|
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.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 116 of 235:
|
Feb 23 03:25 UTC 2004 |
I'd like the voting on this item to end at midnight on the end of a Sunday
through Thursday, so I'm going to keep the discussion of the text itself
open until Wednesday or Thursday of this week.
|
gelinas
|
|
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.
|
remmers
|
|
response 118 of 235:
|
Feb 25 18:55 UTC 2004 |
Hmmm... The proposal refers to an item being "removed"; my question is,
"from what?" The system? The conference in which it was originally posted?
Any conferences to which it was subsequently linked?
|
gelinas
|
|
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.
|
mary
|
|
response 120 of 235:
|
Feb 25 20:01 UTC 2004 |
I'm wondering what this proposal is designed to do - prevent
something like the Valerie episode? Prevent someone's petition
for item removal from being considered at all? Most of the
people who voted to remove last time around did so saying rules
aren't more important than people? So, what's the deal here?
|
gelinas
|
|
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.
|
remmers
|
|
response 122 of 235:
|
Feb 25 20:27 UTC 2004 |
Re #119: No, changing "remove" to "delete" wouldn't help. I don't
understand what the proposal would and wouldn't allow. Under the
proposed policy, would it be okay for a fairwitness, cfadm, or root
(the only people who can remove items, except for the author in
limited circumstances) to delete any item in conference A as long
as it was still visible in some other conference B?
|
cmcgee
|
|
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?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 124 of 235:
|
Feb 25 21:31 UTC 2004 |
The answer to your question, cmcgee, is in the sentence,
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.
How can this sentence be reworded to include an item inappropriate to
the conference, but not be subject to whim?
I don't see the claim that an item hasn't "really" been deleted because
it's in another conference as a defense, remmers. The intent is to make
clear that we don't want items deleted from the system, I think.
I'm not sure how to handle a request to unlink an item. On the one hand,
I see this as different from completely removing an item. On the other
hand, I can see where the folks who participate in only one conference
would see it differently. For example, I read the letter-match items in
the Language conference instead of the Puzzles conference. Someone who
read only Puzzles could easily resent the items being removed from that
conference.
So I don't know.
|
albaugh
|
|
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.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 126 of 235:
|
Feb 26 00:43 UTC 2004 |
Good point. While I commend gelinas for his efforts, I'm not sure the
recent past is addressed by this. To me the issue is what do you do when
staff goes berserk and abuses their privileges? In those situations, I
would like a policy in which the presumption is that all such damage must
be undone ASAP.
|
cmcgee
|
|
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.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 128 of 235:
|
Feb 26 01:08 UTC 2004 |
Whereas I believe having a policy that it should not be done in the first
place is sufficient.
Usually, if something should not be done, the remedy when it is done
is obvious. I especially think such to be the case with this policy.
|
tod
|
|
response 129 of 235:
|
Feb 26 01:13 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 130 of 235:
|
Feb 26 01:15 UTC 2004 |
tod, drop it.
Can you suggest better wording, cmcgee?
|
tod
|
|
response 131 of 235:
|
Feb 26 01:28 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 132 of 235:
|
Feb 26 01:50 UTC 2004 |
Restore it, of course.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 133 of 235:
|
Feb 26 01:50 UTC 2004 |
Once the policy is in place, no vote is required to undo its violation.
|
salad
|
|
response 134 of 235:
|
Feb 26 02:28 UTC 2004 |
But then users will say that either the policy does not apply, or the actions
do not fall in the category covered by the current policy.
You should know this. It already happened.
|
jp2
|
|
response 135 of 235:
|
Feb 26 02:56 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 136 of 235:
|
Feb 26 02:59 UTC 2004 |
How about something simpler, which still leaves fws discretion:
Any user who has posted an item, or a response to an item, to a Grex
conference from which that item has subsequently been removed may
appeal that removal to the Board of Directors. If at least two
members of the Board publicly announce that they consider the matter
worthy of review, the Board will vote at their earliest
convenience on whether to undo the item removal.
|
jp2
|
|
response 137 of 235:
|
Feb 26 03:01 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 138 of 235:
|
Feb 26 03:08 UTC 2004 |
(This provides for fairly quick relief in the event of injust
removal, while avoiding definitional difficulties. Also, a
membership vote is always the default final arbiter, but hopefully,
a board vote would reflect the likely outcome and thereby short-
circuit that tedious process.)
|
other
|
|
response 139 of 235:
|
Feb 26 03:09 UTC 2004 |
If you think this is micromanagement, you have a very unusual
definition of the word.
|