|
Grex > Coop13 > #111: A Proposal to Clarify Grex's Stance on Deleting Items | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 235 responses total. |
jp2
|
|
response 155 of 235:
| 
Feb 28 15:39 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 156 of 235:
|
Mar 1 17:05 UTC 2004 |
Ok, I'm much more comfortable with that.
I can support this.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 157 of 235:
|
Mar 3 03:20 UTC 2004 |
I've sent a message to voteadm with response 154 above as the text of
the proposal. I'd kind of wanted the vote to end at a midnight that Mark
would be able to get to the mailbox the next day, but I guess it really
doesn't matter.
I have not included a remedy for violation in the text because I really
don't consider it necessary: the remedy to a clear abuse is usually
itself clear. It's when it's not clear that something is an abuse that
things get muddy.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 158 of 235:
|
Mar 3 13:25 UTC 2004 |
HUH?!?! The remedy was clear last time and the right thing was not done.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 159 of 235:
|
Mar 3 13:40 UTC 2004 |
No, the remedy was NOT clear. Some of us are still not convinced the removals
were abuse. If this proposal is aprroved, future such removals would clearly
be abuse.
|
jp2
|
|
response 160 of 235:
|
Mar 3 14:05 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 161 of 235:
|
Mar 3 18:39 UTC 2004 |
It's clear that you are Puerile. How can it not be clear that you're a ninny?
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 162 of 235:
|
Mar 3 22:28 UTC 2004 |
It's clear that you guys don't get along, but I've never seen anything
that would indicate to me that Valerie had the right to do what she did.
|
tod
|
|
response 163 of 235:
|
Mar 3 22:28 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
remmers
|
|
response 164 of 235:
|
Mar 4 01:42 UTC 2004 |
Joe G. has asked that this be moved to a vote, so the vote is scheduled
to start at midnight tonight. Voting will end at midnight ten days
later.
Since there's another vote already in progress, frequent voters will
notice that the two-choice menu is back. If you try to vote on Joe's
proposal before midnight tonight though, you'll see a message that
the polls haven't opened yet.
|
jp2
|
|
response 165 of 235:
|
Mar 4 02:02 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 166 of 235:
|
Mar 4 03:08 UTC 2004 |
Thank you, jp2. :)
|
jp2
|
|
response 167 of 235:
|
Mar 4 03:40 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
remmers
|
|
response 168 of 235:
|
Mar 4 13:59 UTC 2004 |
I'm trying to understand the amount of latitude this would give for
individual conferences to set their own policies.
For example, would it be consistent with this proposal for the Classified
Conference to have the policy that an item advertising something for sale
can be removed when the item is sold, or if the seller decides not to sell
it?
Would it be consistent for a fairwitness to set the policy that items more
than one year old could be deleted without notice, provided that the policy
is adequately publicized to the conference participants? Or could be
deleted on the request of the person who posted the item, again presuming
that the policy was adequately publicized?
I guess I'm unclear on the intent of the part that says "...an item may
be removed only if it violates the general policies of Grex or the
conference it was entered in," relative to these examples.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 169 of 235:
|
Mar 4 21:01 UTC 2004 |
#154 would seem to merely make explicity what most people (except maybe
valerie) thought already was the policy on item deletion. Since it seems not
to proport more than that, I can recommend a "yes" vote. That is, "for all
the good it will do", given that rogue fw's & staff...
|
rational
|
|
response 170 of 235:
|
Mar 4 22:56 UTC 2004 |
Stop being idiots. None of you are better than jp2.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 171 of 235:
|
Mar 5 00:08 UTC 2004 |
(I am also an exception, along with valerie. Which is why I made the
proposal.)
Yes, all of your examples would fall under "permitted removals", John,
*presuming* the conference-specific policies were promulgated in advance.
In the case of adopting a new policy, I'd leave it to the conference
participants to decide whether items should be 'grandfathered.'
|
rational
|
|
response 172 of 235:
|
Mar 5 00:19 UTC 2004 |
This is absurdly obscure for something that's public.
|
mdw
|
|
response 173 of 235:
|
Mar 7 04:14 UTC 2004 |
I voted "no" on this. I don't think it solves any real problems, and it
creates the potential for more confusion.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 174 of 235:
|
Mar 10 00:44 UTC 2004 |
I read someone say that they voted "No" on this proposal because they don't
feel it solves any real problem. I disagree; *IF* this proposal is approved,
then we will have a better idea of when items can be removed.
This will do nothing about the current controversy, but nor is it intended
to. It won't _prevent_ a future occurrence, but it will make plainer what
to do, since that which should not be removed should be restored.
|
tod
|
|
response 175 of 235:
|
Mar 10 00:55 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 176 of 235:
|
Mar 10 01:05 UTC 2004 |
There was not agreement that the material should not have been removed.
|
jp2
|
|
response 177 of 235:
|
Mar 10 01:28 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
tod
|
|
response 178 of 235:
|
Mar 10 01:33 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 179 of 235:
|
Mar 10 01:37 UTC 2004 |
Valerie's actions got put up for a vote because there was no clear guidance
on what to do. This proposal would provide that guidance, should there be
another occurrence.
|