|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 10 new of 34 responses total. |
swa
|
|
response 25 of 34:
| 
Oct 31 06:13 UTC 2001 |
Like gull, I think I'd vote for either of these if only one comes to a
vote, and if I get around to renewing my membership before it does. That
is, I strongly believe we need to change the current situation. I have
mixed feelings about how this should be done.
|
mary
|
|
response 26 of 34:
|
Oct 31 14:08 UTC 2001 |
I share some of Jan's concerns about the growing need for staff
involvement in people problems. But I see that happening no matter
what we do or don't do at this point. If people are allowed to
remove their text from public view then staff will be asked to
"Let me see it because I heard about how I was slandered and I
have a right to know what was said." And then we're off and running
on that one. What is fair here? Who decides? I could see staff
Given the hard choice between allowing people to take back what
they've said or entering corrections, I'd like to see corrections
to the record.
|
janc
|
|
response 27 of 34:
|
Oct 31 15:06 UTC 2001 |
Here's a variation on Mary's suggestion that might be interesting:
(1) Users required to agree to irrevocable license before posting, so
their words may not be deleted.
(2) The "scribble/erase" commands vanish from Picospan/Backtalk.
(3) An "edit" command added to Picospan/Backtalk. If a response is
editted, then by default people would only see the newest version,
with a tag saying "editted by so-and-so on such-and-such date), but
they would be able to call up all previous versions (via a link in
backtalk or some command to show the history of the response in
Picospan).
Parts (1) and (2) are exactly Mary's plan. Part (3) allows a person who
regrets something they said to insert a correction and/or apology that is
seen before the original text.
Implementing (3) would be somewhat challenging. Users should probably be
able to configure whether or not they are shown new versions of responses
that they saw before when they do "read new". However, technical issues
are solvable.
I'm not sure this would be a good idea.
|
pfv
|
|
response 28 of 34:
|
Oct 31 15:25 UTC 2001 |
I'd never support Mary's proposal <shrug> Luckily, I don't waste a dime.
Have fun, boychiks.
|
jp2
|
|
response 29 of 34:
|
Oct 31 15:51 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
mdw
|
|
response 30 of 34:
|
Oct 31 16:05 UTC 2001 |
You think copyright works differently in Michigan? Perhaps we ought to
consult with the secretary of state?
|
jp2
|
|
response 31 of 34:
|
Oct 31 16:19 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
mdw
|
|
response 32 of 34:
|
Oct 31 16:21 UTC 2001 |
*Ah*, so you're arguing open source software is impossible in Michigan.
*I see*.
|
jp2
|
|
response 33 of 34:
|
Oct 31 16:24 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 34 of 34:
|
Oct 31 16:27 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|