|
Grex > Coop13 > #111: A Proposal to Clarify Grex's Stance on Deleting Items | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 235 responses total. |
gelinas
|
|
response 190 of 235:
| 
Mar 10 21:34 UTC 2004 |
Despite albaugh's revisionism, not removing items was NOT SOP. It may
not have been done very often, but *some* people thought items _could_
be removed. I was one of them.
The disagreement persists: I _still_ think items can be removed.
(But I'm not going to remove any as things stand now.) Convince me I'm
wrong: approve this proposal.
|
tod
|
|
response 191 of 235:
|
Mar 10 21:41 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 192 of 235:
|
Mar 10 21:48 UTC 2004 |
If the Item is not one that should be removed, never.
|
salad
|
|
response 193 of 235:
|
Mar 10 22:12 UTC 2004 |
There was no reason why those items should have been removed.
|
tod
|
|
response 194 of 235:
|
Mar 10 22:12 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 195 of 235:
|
Mar 10 22:35 UTC 2004 |
I don't see a difference between "staff guidelines" and "expectations
for end users."
This proposal is about the expectations OF the users and members of the
community (for lack of a better word). Staff are expected to comply with
the EXPRESSED desires of the users and members.
(Like the First Law of Robotics: A robot cannot _knowingly_ harm a human
being or, by inaction, allow a human to come to harm.)
|
tod
|
|
response 196 of 235:
|
Mar 10 23:16 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 197 of 235:
|
Mar 11 18:45 UTC 2004 |
Let me be more precise, then, for the slow to comprehend: There was
widespread agreement that the items should *not* have been removed in the
manner they were. There could have been a thoughtful debate on whether such
items could / should be removed, but it was moot: valerie preempted any such
discussions. Anyone who maintains that valerie was justified to abuse her
staff capabilities to remove the items because there might have been agreement
by grexers that it would be OK to remove such items (e.g. by a FW) is full
of crap. It is true that there was insufficient outrage etc. by grexers to
undo the harm, as witnessed by the vote to restore the items failing. But
to mix it all together and say it's all the same thing is dishonest.
|
twenex
|
|
response 198 of 235:
|
Mar 11 18:46 UTC 2004 |
Agreed. I think.
|
tod
|
|
response 199 of 235:
|
Mar 11 18:51 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
twenex
|
|
response 200 of 235:
|
Mar 11 18:52 UTC 2004 |
Good point.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 201 of 235:
|
Mar 11 18:58 UTC 2004 |
Find it as disengenuous as you want. There is no other mechanism on grex to
determine "what the users want" than the vote program. Discussions were held
up the wazoo, most people decided "leave it alone". They just reaffirmed that
position. Time to move on to the next outrage...
|
rational
|
|
response 202 of 235:
|
Mar 11 20:03 UTC 2004 |
Re. 197: T hat is for the subset of people actually reading and discussing
it in coop. Less than half the people did that; the rest voted based solely
on Ms Mates's lie-ridden E-mail.
|
tod
|
|
response 203 of 235:
|
Mar 11 20:24 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
anderyn
|
|
response 204 of 235:
|
Mar 11 21:57 UTC 2004 |
I betcha that a lot of people did read the coop discussion but didn't
participate. You can't say that people voted on the basis of the Valerie email
alone, since it's hard to know what everyone used as a basis without asking
them what they voted and why. I didn't even get the email, so I know it wasn't
a factor in any voting I may have done.
|
tod
|
|
response 205 of 235:
|
Mar 11 22:25 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 206 of 235:
|
Mar 11 22:54 UTC 2004 |
Re 197: I do not maintain "that valerie was justified to abuse her staff
capabilities to remove the items because there might have been agreement
by grexers that it would be OK to remove such items."
I *have* argued that it was NOT abuse. I *have* argued that removing
the baby-diary items was within her rights. No matter *how* accomplished.
Now, let's move on: Can items be removed? If so, under what circumstances?
Does the current proposal accurately describe what should be grex policy
on the removal of items? If yes, vote yes. If no, vote no.
If this proposal fails, we will, in my opinion, need further discussion
to craft a statement that does reflect grex policy on the removal of items.
|
tod
|
|
response 207 of 235:
|
Mar 11 23:21 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 208 of 235:
|
Mar 11 23:24 UTC 2004 |
So vote "yes" on the this proposal.
|
rational
|
|
response 209 of 235:
|
Mar 12 00:56 UTC 2004 |
Re. 196: We CAN know that MOST people who voted DIDN"T read the coop
conference, let alone paricipate in it, because of the logs.
|
salad
|
|
response 210 of 235:
|
Mar 12 03:08 UTC 2004 |
And janc's nifty item.
|
remmers
|
|
response 211 of 235:
|
Mar 14 18:30 UTC 2004 |
The vote on this has ended. I've emailed the treasurer. Once Mark
has certified the voter list, I'll post the results.
|
aruba
|
|
response 212 of 235:
|
Mar 14 19:38 UTC 2004 |
I'll need to check the box tomorrow, so I'll mail John after I do.
|
remmers
|
|
response 213 of 235:
|
Mar 15 17:38 UTC 2004 |
Mark emailed me the updated voter list, so here are the results.
Number of members voting: 40 out of 77 eligible
Yes 21
No 19
The motion passes.
|
atlantic
|
|
response 214 of 235:
|
Mar 15 17:41 UTC 2004 |
Yet no-one has any fucking idea what it does.
|