|
Grex > Coop10 > #8: Grex Statement on Root Use and User Privacy |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 11 new of 35 responses total. |
rcurl
|
|
response 25 of 35:
| 
Jul 2 21:14 UTC 1997 |
Policies or guidelines adopted only by staff are not *Grex* policies or
guidelines. I believe that the principles embodied in the suggested guidelines
are sufficiently important that they should have the Grex imprimatur.
|
janc
|
|
response 26 of 35:
|
Jul 4 19:45 UTC 1997 |
If we want to adapt this as a policy, it first needs a lot more work.
Inconsistancies in voice are the least if its problems. From my viewpoint,
it isn't a high enough priority. Working on Backtalk or the 501(c)3 paperwork
seem more critical to me right now. If someone wants to work on it to tighten
up the writing and include some of the commentary that has appeared in this
item, then that's fine with me. I'm not convinced the board needs to formally
adopt this, but if it does, some work needs to be done first.
|
remmers
|
|
response 27 of 35:
|
Jul 6 14:54 UTC 1997 |
I think it would be reasonable for the board to adopt a
statement of principle to the effect that in general it
respects the privacy of users' depermitted files and email,
and to request that the staff keep it and the users informed
of the kinds of circumstances that allow exceptions. That
could be a very short, simple motion, and items like this
would be the mechanism by which users are kept informed.
|
scg
|
|
response 28 of 35:
|
Jul 6 15:34 UTC 1997 |
One of the concerns at the board meeting was that if we adopt a policy saying
what we will and won't do with users' files, it could leave us open to
lawsuits if there were a disagreement on the meaning of the policy and what
we had promised to do. I would like to get a legal opinion on any policy of
this nature that we vote on.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 29 of 35:
|
Jul 6 18:35 UTC 1997 |
Call them guidelines, and there are no legal questions.
|
janc
|
|
response 30 of 35:
|
Jul 8 13:28 UTC 1997 |
I'd like something like what John describes in #27. It would be best to have
the specific wording of such a statement of principle worked out in advance
of the board meeting and discussed on-line. Trying to word such a thing
during the meeting would be serious waste of time and somewhat perilous.
|
dpc
|
|
response 31 of 35:
|
Jul 12 15:49 UTC 1997 |
As a Board member on M-Net, I would strongly suggest that this type
of thing be kept at the *staff* level. 8-)
|
tsty
|
|
response 32 of 35:
|
Jul 13 07:19 UTC 1997 |
i agree with not making 'policy' out of this. stating a 'guideline' or
enunciating a 'general approach' akin to remmers' #18 is sufficient.
|
arthurp
|
|
response 33 of 35:
|
Jul 14 02:18 UTC 1997 |
Maybe the board could affirm that it is an interresting and useful set
of guidlines for staff to use to police staff action? That ought to
make clear that staff has the freedom to act as needed, and still give
others the guidlines that they seek.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 34 of 35:
|
Jul 14 04:58 UTC 1997 |
The suggested guidelines leave the staff with the flexibility necessary,
or if they don't, flexibility can be increased. In any event, though,
these should be *grex* guidelines, not the private ones of staff.
Affirming "an intersting and useful set of guidelines" is done by the
board *adopting* the guidelines. I don't think leaving them in never-never
land is the way to proceed.
|
tao
|
|
response 35 of 35:
|
Jul 14 16:21 UTC 1997 |
re 34: Agreed.
|