|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 393 responses total. |
other
|
|
response 291 of 393:
| 
Jan 10 18:54 UTC 2004 |
An alternative conclusion might be that policy which is clear should be
stated clearly and that at least one staff member should be charged
with keeping current in Co-op and informing other staff either at
meetings or by email, whichever is most timely, of any effective or
actual changes in policy.
|
janc
|
|
response 292 of 393:
|
Jan 10 18:59 UTC 2004 |
I wonder if it really makes sense to keep everything around forever as
we do. Maybe Grex should just always automatically delete every item
that hasn't had a response for a year.
Yeah, the old items have value. There were, as others have said, some
very intelligent and thoughtful responses to JEP's divorce items, and if
you were going through a divorce, looking back on that might be helpful.
But you know, you could probably get as good advice or better by
starting your own divorce item. Oops, no, I forgot. We all know today
that we would never be so stupid as to do that, especially considering
that our item could never ever be deleted if we had second thoughts
later. So I guess we'd better keep JEP pinned to the wall for future
reference. Discussions of that quality aren't going to happen again.
|
willcome
|
|
response 293 of 393:
|
Jan 10 19:06 UTC 2004 |
You don't think there's any value in preserving Grex's history?
|
janc
|
|
response 294 of 393:
|
Jan 10 19:50 UTC 2004 |
Sometimes it's history, and sometimes it's deadwood, and sometimes it's
historical deadwood.
Eric: It would be hard to make that work. All staff knew what the
conclusion of that discussion was - the closing of the censor log. But
the whole discussion caused a shift and clarification of the Grex
community's outlook on several related issues. Who's going to be
insightful enough to recognize those shifts, figure out who didn't know
about them, and accurately convey the right message to the right people.
I had no idea that Valerie didn't have the same understanding that I
did, and I talk to Valerie much more than I talk to, say, Marcus, and
know her much better.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 295 of 393:
|
Jan 10 19:54 UTC 2004 |
Interesting comments on the "censored" log, Jan. I participated in that
debate, but I didn't come away from it thinking items couldn't be deleted.
Sure, there is a value in preserving Grex's history. But a complete record
of anything ever said on grex is NOT necessary to that preservation.
|
other
|
|
response 296 of 393:
|
Jan 10 20:17 UTC 2004 |
Perhaps an ongoing policy discussion in the Staff conference would be
in order. The idea would be to discuss practical implications of
policy changes, and perceptions of implicit changes could be discussed
and validated.
One of the strengths of Grex is that the policies by which we operate
are not vast and complex, but one of the weaknesses of our system is
that the fluidity of our policy sometimes results in controversial
judgement calls, and over time, resolving those controversies has
become a more difficult and noisome process. So the logical responses
are either to increase the degree to which our policies are clearly
codified, or take steps to insure that there is broad and clear
understanding of those policies by those charged with their
implementation.
|
gull
|
|
response 297 of 393:
|
Jan 10 21:15 UTC 2004 |
Re resp:292: I would oppose that as a general policy. I find a lot of
the old items in conferences like micros and jellyware interesting, and
I'd hate to see them deleted just for the sake of clearing out deadwood.
I think individual fairwitnesses should be free to set policies like
that for their own conferences, though.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 298 of 393:
|
Jan 10 22:01 UTC 2004 |
I think automatically clearing old items is a bad idea. The info conference,
for example has a lot of "old" info that is still useable. In fact, I really
hope valerie can later be convinced to restore her responses in that
conference.
|
naftee
|
|
response 299 of 393:
|
Jan 10 22:10 UTC 2004 |
Maybe GreX needs a classics conference!
|
tod
|
|
response 300 of 393:
|
Jan 10 23:39 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
styles
|
|
response 301 of 393:
|
Jan 11 00:46 UTC 2004 |
you mean the common sense of not trying to do something as root when the
conferencing system clearly does not allow you to do it as yourself?
|
jp2
|
|
response 302 of 393:
|
Jan 11 01:04 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jep
|
|
response 303 of 393:
|
Jan 11 04:26 UTC 2004 |
re resp:296: I would be interested in the perceptions of staffers for
the rules being established in the coop conference. So would others.
I think it might be hard to argue that the common users should be
excluded from knowing how the staff might be interpreting the rules.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 304 of 393:
|
Jan 11 08:11 UTC 2004 |
I think the purpose of Eric's suggestion was to make sure that all of the
staff are on the same page, that all agree on how the rules established in
coop should be implemented. Reporting that agreement is only necessary if
it results in something different from what the membership established here.
We want to avoid a repeat of this week's experience, where different staffers
had different opinions of what the rules were and how those rules should be
applied.
|
naftee
|
|
response 305 of 393:
|
Jan 11 20:33 UTC 2004 |
Haven't all the staff voiced their opinions in this item?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 306 of 393:
|
Jan 12 00:11 UTC 2004 |
No, they've not. Several staff members do not read coop, as I think Jan
mentioned some time back. If reading a coop is a requirement, they'll quit.
|
spooked
|
|
response 307 of 393:
|
Jan 12 00:59 UTC 2004 |
As a staffer (and general onlooker), I don't think adding my opinion on
this will advance the issue.
What is clear, to me, is that we need to move forward constructively and
I'm putting my faith in the board to see some sense and get Grex back on
track - we must not let those who wish to destroy us win.
|
naftee
|
|
response 308 of 393:
|
Jan 12 01:08 UTC 2004 |
menuadm
|
willcome
|
|
response 309 of 393:
|
Jan 12 10:01 UTC 2004 |
(Anyone who thinks there's anyone who wants to destroy Grex, or that there's
a concerted effort to do so, is fucking paranoid.)
|
davel
|
|
response 310 of 393:
|
Jan 12 13:31 UTC 2004 |
Re 307: too late, I'm afraid.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 311 of 393:
|
Jan 12 22:21 UTC 2004 |
Note that my recollection on the reconsidering of "closing the scribbled log"
was in response to the anonymous internet reading of grex conferences that
backtalk allowed.
|
mary
|
|
response 312 of 393:
|
Jan 13 01:01 UTC 2004 |
I have a question for Jan.
Let's say we do indeed decide not to restore these items. We'll say that
Valerie has a right to remove the responses of all those who participated
in the discussion, because the discussion was about her. (I'm not going to
argue that point but concede it for the moment.) And we're going to
remove the entirety of the divorce items because, at some point, what
other people said about or to jep may be harmful to him or his custody
battle or his child or even his wife. Yes, John, even your wife.
Anyhow, we do this because it's the right thing to do.
So when the next person comes along, all upset, begging for responses
entered by someone else to be censored because they could indeed hurt
him, or someone he loved, or his job status, or whatever, then what?
Do we say our kindness was a one time gift? Do we ask for the whole of
Grex to vote but first remove the item? Do we elect a censorship czar to
decide whether the request is authentic?
That's the end of my question.
You can say Valerie's action was that of a rogue staffer, acting on her
own. But if we, meaning staff, board or even the whole of our membership,
agrees to censor these items for the reasons that have been given, then we
will have set some precedent. We will have instituted censorship of each
other's posts if only you can make the case the responses are really
about you or hurtful.
Yuck. Double yuck.
I'm very anti-censorship. I'm pro informing people of how the system
operates and warning them to join in, with this warning: they might not
like everything they see. And they won't be able to erase what others
say. We all get to have opinions, for better or worse. Welcome to
Grex.
|
naftee
|
|
response 313 of 393:
|
Jan 13 02:01 UTC 2004 |
Great! But neither jep NOR valerie told the general public that they
had killed items until AFTER the fact.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 314 of 393:
|
Jan 13 02:58 UTC 2004 |
Would doing otherwise have changed things? I'm curious.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 315 of 393:
|
Jan 13 03:37 UTC 2004 |
The question was for Jan, but I'll venture my answer:
Valerie deleted her items because she thought that such action was within
the guidelines for grex. We have all since learned that she was wrong:
her action was NOT within the guidelines.
Valerie deleted JEP's items because she could not think of any way to NOT
delete them, after having deleted her own. (I'm reminded of a line from
"Joan of Arcadia": "Don't blame me for your lack of imagination.")
We are all now very clear on what current policy is: we can delete our
own text, but not the text of others. The events of last week were an
aberation that will NOT be repeated.
So why not restore the erroneously deleted text? Because to do so would
serve no USEFUL purpose. It might make a few people feel better, but
it would not improve the state of grex. It would NOT undo the harm of
last week. However, it WOULD do fresh harm: those items could never again
lie fallow. They would be instantly copied and recopied by all interested,
and many disinterested, parties; we are all sensitised to them. Better to
live with the single wrong of their deletion than the double-wrong of
their restoration.
|