response 30 of 79:

Feb 9 23:46 UTC 2004

What about the parts where remmers and krj conspire to force the thing through
at all costs?!   DIDN"T ANYOEN READ THEM!?

response 32 of 79:

Feb 10 01:54 UTC 2004

So is constipation, per response #30.

response 34 of 79:

Feb 10 02:58 UTC 2004

Has anyone made a proposal yet that if a psychotic person with root
access, but no specific authority, destroys any posts and/or items those
posts/items must be automatically restored while discussion is pending?

response 36 of 79:

Feb 10 03:01 UTC 2004

There is a fundamental principle here:  If you don't trust the system's
administrators, don't use the system. 

Rules can be broken.  No amount of rules will prevent the rules being broken.

response 38 of 79:

Feb 10 03:20 UTC 2004

Yes, that has been made *QUITE* clear, thank you. And let me also add that
if for any reason I choose to continue to vist and/or post here, I *WILL*
be making copious copies for parody or whatever other reasons I may
decide. Feel free to spread that around. I mean, it wouldn't do to have
the val-types coming back a *second* time whining about how no one warned
them about us mnet meanies.  Ooops; if you did that wouldn't you "chill" 
the speech of your social misfits? Wow, tough choice. Oh well, sucks to be
you. 

Ya'll may think you won a battle, but you lost a much larger war.

response 40 of 79:

Feb 10 03:25 UTC 2004

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:  You should spend less time
screaming and more time thinking, cyklone.  Take the time to READ what
_I've_ said here, in all of the items on the subject, and think about the
totality of its meaning, and see if you don't agree with me:  You really
should spend less time screaming and more time thinking.

response 42 of 79:

Feb 10 03:36 UTC 2004

Re #40: And if you think #38 was a "scream" you need to take the time to try
to understand what you are reading. Here's a hint: even though you and I do
agree on some things, when you see "ya'll" in something I've written that
means it's directed at grex as a whole, not at you. Capiche?

response 44 of 79:

Feb 10 03:40 UTC 2004

SHEEESH. Do you know the difference between commenting on the *thoughts* in
a post as compared to the *poster*? Trust me, I know who I directed #39
toward, and if it only "reaches" you then I will be sorely disappointed.

response 46 of 79:

Feb 10 07:26 UTC 2004

I'm leaning towards aruba's wording in resp:12 for the implementation of
my proposal.

response 50 of 79:

Feb 10 13:53 UTC 2004

Instead of involving voteadm and the board in whether a proposal is
"voteable" or not, I'd prefer a process that leaves control of that
in the hands of the members themselves.  How about something like
this, added to the bylaw on member proposals:

    In order for a member proposal to be voted on, at least
    10% of the membership must endorse bringing the proposal to
    a vote.  Endorsement shall consist of a statement by the
    member in the proposal item, agreeing that the proposal
    should be voted on.  A member may withdraw his or her
    endorsement at any time prior to the start of voting.

This is an online analog of the petitions required by various
states to get issues on the ballot.

I mean, voteadm might think that something shouldn't be voted on,
or the board might think that something shouldn't be voted on, but
if 10% of the members think it should, then it probably should.
On the other hand, if the proposer can't even get 10% of the
membership to agree that it should be voted on, it probably
shouldn't.

The sentence about withdrawing endorsement covers the case where
a member likes the first version of the proposal but not the
final wording.

response 52 of 79:

Feb 10 14:06 UTC 2004

Do we know that ten per cent of the membership regularly reads the coop
conference?Also, this seems to diverge from Grex's tradition of giving privacy
to voters; might a vote to agree to vote on an issue, however subtly, be
considered giving support to the proposal?!  These and other issues are what
Grex needs to think about.

response 54 of 79:

Feb 10 14:15 UTC 2004

I like that too - thanks remmers.

To jep - I don't know that voteadm has any "official" status, so that was a
problem with the way I worded it, you're right.  John's idea is a better
one.