response 35 of 108:

Jan 15 19:57 UTC 2004

Hey, I used the ability to customise the look of various conferences!!1

response 37 of 108:

Jan 15 21:17 UTC 2004

(Hmm...do I need to clarify that point?  To me it seems obvious that
retiring an item is different than deleting it, but it may not be
obvious to everyone.)

response 39 of 108:

Jan 15 21:33 UTC 2004

My understanding is that it still exists in the conference, but is never
treated as 'new'.  I'm not sure if it still shows up in the item list or
not.

response 41 of 108:

Jan 16 00:48 UTC 2004

So it basically has the same effect as 'forget', but for everyone who reads
the conference?

response 43 of 108:

Jan 16 02:55 UTC 2004

I used the web-customization ability of backtalk too, and found it very
effective.

response 45 of 108:

Jan 16 21:49 UTC 2004

Re resp:44:
I don't think it's likely.  It's never happened in the past, and the
opportunity has always been there.  (Staff generally doesn't react
instantly to such things.)  It would be an exceedingly slow and tedious
way to fill a disk compared to, say, 'dd if=/dev/zero of=~/bigfile'

I'll consider putting an exception in for that situation, but at the
moment I can't think of a good way to word it.  I'm not comfortable with
just saying "staff may remove spam items" because then we have the
problem of how to determine what's spam and what isn't.  If we allow
staff members to remove any items that they don't think have value, that
pretty well guts the proposal.

response 47 of 108:

Jan 17 05:39 UTC 2004

I agree.

response 49 of 108:

Jan 18 17:54 UTC 2004

Here's a revision of the proposal that attempts to address aruba's
objection.  I've also clarified the default policy of the first exception.

--- %< ---- cut here ----

Grex staff and conference fairwitnesses shall not remove items from
conferences.  The following exceptions are made:
- Fairwitnesses of conferences where item removal is part of clearly
stated conference policy may remove items in accordance with that
policy.  If no policy is posted, items may not be removed by fairwitnesses.
- Items that contain information that is unlawful to distribute or
otherwise presents a legal threat to Grex may be removed, IF the less
disruptive method of erasing individual responses is not sufficient.
- Items that adversely affect the operation of the conferencing system
may be removed.

None of this should be construed to affect an individual user's right to
erase ("scribble" in Picospan) their own responses.

--- %< ---- cut here ----

The new third exception should, for example, cover cases where someone
enters an item that uses excessive amounts of disk space, contains
control codes that upset people's terminals, or confuses the
conferencing software.

response 51 of 108:

Jan 18 22:06 UTC 2004

That would probably be clearer.

response 53 of 108:

Jan 19 04:08 UTC 2004

re 51 Yea, it wouldn't need any explanation :-0 .

response 55 of 108:

Jan 19 16:25 UTC 2004

(Is there agreement among the rest of grex's members and users that she broke
the rules?)

response 57 of 108:

Jan 19 17:32 UTC 2004

I think it's a good idea, when considering enacting a new rule, to 
think about just a few things:

1) Will the rule be effective if it passes?
2) Is it necessary?
3) Will it have unintended consequences?

1) Valerie said she didn't think she was breaking any rules.  At least 
one other staff member agreed with her.  This rule would certainly 
clarify that staff members can't delete items in the same way.  
Assuming she wouldn't break a rule, or more poignantly, that no other 
staff member would, then this rule would be effective.

2) Would any staff member delete an item if this proposal doesn't 
pass?  I can't imagine that they would, given the fury of controversy 
this has generated.  I don't think many would have before the 
controversy.  I don't think this rule passes the "necessary" test at 
this point, but I can understand if some people do think it's necessary.

3) There's no way to know if any change will have unintended 
consequences.  You just have to decide what might reasonably happen and 
hope you don't miss anything.

Some potential consequences: Maybe some staff members won't be able to 
live with the burden of the rule.  Maybe one of them will react against 
it.  Maybe someone, some day, will not know about the rule, 
inadvertently break it, and then get himself dismissed from the staff.  
(We have no other way to discipline a staff member.)  Maybe someone 
will feel like his hands are tied and not take an action which is 
necessary.

This proposal takes away from the freedom staff members have to use 
their own initiative and feeling of reasonableness.  That is it's 
purpose.  Does that transfer into other areas, too?  I don't know 
that.  Maybe others have a better feel for it.

My conclusion is that this rule is not necessary, and also that it 
unproductively counters what Grex expects from it's staff members.

David said it's not intended specifically for Valerie's actions.  It's 
hard to imagine this passing, or even being proposed, if it weren't for 
Valerie's actions.  I think if it had been passed a year ago, it would 
have prevented her deleting any items, but now, as I said, I don't 
think it prevents anything.

response 59 of 108:

Jan 19 19:00 UTC 2004

> This proposal wouldn't have prevented Valerie from doing what she did.

True, given the [software] *power* that staff & fw's have.  But at least there
would be no doubt that her actions would have violated policy, undeniably,
and that consequences and counter-actions could be taken without need for more
member debate.