response 386 of 624:

Jan 17 21:31 UTC 1997

The member vote needs tobe a on a specifically defined policy. Valerie's
proposal, it seems to me, would be the equivalent of saying that the
members dont want to take a position on this issue.  Leaving this up to
the fair witnesses is totally avoiding the issue, which should be:

"Should grex adopt a policy for its conferencing environment, that its
confs be available for reading by unregistered users?"

That is what should be voted on.  No compromises should be agreed upon
until a policy is in place.  If the members vote that they want all confs
tobe available in this manner, then it is incumbent upon the board to find
a compromise that would eventually lead to that.  Rcurl's compromise could
then be considered.  I think any "exemptions" should be then considered
temporary and that once a conf is re-started or once the current fw's
leave, the exemptions expire and the confs are then to be opened.

But if the members vote no to the basic policy, THEN you have subsequent
votes on whether to have one conf or some confs, on a permanent basis,
made available and others not.

It would be misleading to vote on compromises before voting on basic
policy.

response 388 of 624:

Jan 17 22:06 UTC 1997

I also think that allowing the fair witness to make decisions on whether a
conf is open or closed, is implying and making it policy that the fw owns
that conference. I view all conferenceshere as being owned by Grex, and
that only Grex (meaning the members) should be able to make decisions
about access.  Since it is impractical for there tobe member votes on a
conf by conf basis, to decide which should be open and which shouldnt, it
is only reasonable to expect there to be ONE set of rules that every conf
has to abide by.

I also dont think it is possible for a fw to make a decision that reflects
accurately the sentiments of eveyrone who belongs to that conf.  Only a
small mpercentage of those who read any conf actually post in it.   And
the fw can only know the sentiments of those who post.

response 390 of 624:

Jan 18 02:09 UTC 1997

Re 385 - Yah, that's what I thought too. And what I said,
waaaay back when.  Once again my opinions are being ignored
by everyone else.  Ennh.  I'm used to it.

response 392 of 624:

Jan 18 03:06 UTC 1997

I'd be disappointed if people weren't drawn in by it, because 
those people wouldn't participate. However it is reasonable to 
expect many will not want to participate. That happens today.

response 394 of 624:

Jan 18 15:52 UTC 1997

Kerouac, ;please stop spouting member polls.
They're not the ony think that matters and not all the members
are here, and you fail to take into account the fact that people
who mightvote yes in general might also vote yes for a compromise.
--
I don't object to this for now, I object to it for certain
topics in general (open conferences).I'll still object in 5
years, probably...
I think it qwould be grosely unfair, even if you are only
grandfathering conferences in, to deny the conference of the future
the right to do what it wants.

response 396 of 624:

Jan 18 18:50 UTC 1997

#393...rob, you are fighting to change this now, but if it does become 
policy, and you still believe it is wrong, why stop fighting?  With all 
the time and effort you put into Grex, I would think that you wouldnt 
want to leave.  That you would WANT to stay and make your arguments 
again and at the right time propose another vote to repeal this.  

If you were to simply leave, it would show you have no faith in Grex and 
no real committment.  In being elected to the Board and agreeing to 
serve, you made a contract with the members of Grex that you would 
believe in Grex and protect and preserve Grex to the best of your 
ability for the two years of your term.  If you were to leave over this, 
you would be stabbing in the back every person who voted for you.  You 
would be saying to the members, "I dont really care what you want.  If 
it isnt what *I* want, then *I'm* gone"

Trust the judgement of Grex's voting members.  If you believe in Grex, 
then you have to believe in the people who are Grex.  This is a really 
important issue and it deserves to be decided on the basis of which 
proposal is best for Grex's future, NOT which proposal will satisfy 
three or four people so they won't leave.

This issue is really about what Grex's goals are and what it wants to 
be.  Grex is committed to providing an "open-access" conferencing 
system, but there seems to be differing definitions of what "open 
access" means.  I think "open access" means that any user of Grex, any 
person who comes to this location, may have access to Grex's 
conferences.  Is a user who uses Grex generically and without a login 
not a user?  If I go to the library, and I do not have a library card 
with my name on it, does that mean I cannot go to certain floors or read 
books with certain subject matters?

There is too much of a "name, rank, and serial number" mentality in the 
world, as if noone can be trusted and everyone should have their ids 
tattooed on their heads.  I always thought the idea of Grex being open 
access was to foster the ideal that people should trust each other and 
that the whole world is a community and nobody is a stranger.  Grex 
should want its conferences open.  If any of its conferences are 
permanently closed to any users, it would defeat that ideal.  You 
shouldnt have to give your name to be part of a community.  

That is why I'm opposed to Grex's verification policies and why I'm 
opposed to this.  But whatever happens, I'm not leaving because-- unlike 
robh-- I'm not going to give up my hope and belief in what Grex is just 
because I dont agree with one policy or another.

response 398 of 624:

Jan 18 20:06 UTC 1997

I can't resist pointing out that the first sentence of Article 8 of
the bylaws clearly states:

     In the event the membership is unable to support Cyberspace
     Communications, all property belonging to the *club* shall be
     sold. (Emphasis added.)

So the bylaws say that Grex is a "club".  So much for the argument that
somehow we already have a *duty* to keep the conferences open for
anyone who wants to use them as a "rest stop on the Internet" without
registering.

response 400 of 624:

Jan 18 20:31 UTC 1997

#398...David, "Grex" is not a club, "Cyberspace Inc." is a club.  Grex 
is the computer bbs that cyberspace inc. runs.  Nobody is saying you 
shouldnt have to say what your name is to join Cyberspace Inc.  But 
"Grex" (the bbs) is by definition "open-access", intended for everyone 
and anyone on the internet to use if they so please and *as* they so 
please.   That was the reason the founders wanted to found Grex in the 
first place.  So such a place would exsist that wouldnt have rules of 
access, that everyone could use.  Presumably, the founders felt the 
community NEEDS places like this.  

I wish there was a way to calculate how many people here are registered 
with valid information.  I bet 30-40% of all logins are taken out with 
bogus names, because many people WANT to be anonymous.  Grex allows them 
to be anonymous, I always assumed, because the founders recognized some 
people are simply more comfortable participating if they are not using 
their own name.  This policy we are debating enacting is already in 
effect!  What is the difference between reading as unregistered or 
reading as registered with a bogus name?

This idea that allowing unregistered reading would somehow alter Grex is 
absurd?  If that was the case, it would have been obvious by now since 
Grex has always basically allowed anonymous reading *and* posting.

    

response 402 of 624:

Jan 19 06:32 UTC 1997

In any democracy it is inevitable that one will "win some" and "lose
some".  We thoroughly air the issues, and then make a democratic decision.
The majority rules - but it is equally as essential that there remains a
loyal minority. Also, people don't vote for anyone because they expect
them to forever vote exactly a particular way, but because they support
the person's outlook and intelligence.

Re #398: Grex/CCI is defined by its Articles of Incorporation, and the
bylaws can't change that. The bylaws were written by non-profit corporate
newbies and are full of inconsistencies and awkward or misleading wordings
- just like what happens when a newbie writes scripts. So, Grex/CCI is not
a "club", though some may think of it as one because of aspects of
relations between the participants. What is important is that the members
of CCI/Grex have the power to adopt policies to implement the Articles and
the Bylaws, and that is what is being discussed here. None of the
alternatives in consideration here would be in violation of the Articles
or Bylaws, so no real injury is done to the purposes of Grex by any
decision that is made. The differences lie in the steps members think best
for implementing the steady purposes.

response 404 of 624:

Jan 19 08:30 UTC 1997

(I agree with Rob and others that it would be nicest 
if only the Intro conference were a webpage.  It 
seems a bit less nice if Agora were a webpage, too, 
since it's purpose isn't to be an advertisement, but 
I can see how others may want it to be, since it is 
so much what Grex is.  I rather dislike the prospect 
of setting up a beaurocracy for deciding which 
conferences are webpages and which are restricted to 
people who have an understanding about what Grex is.  
And I definitely DON'T like the prospect that future 
conferences wouldn't be able to decide wether or not 
they become webpages.  I think that it will stifle 
the creation of conferences in the future.)

response 406 of 624:

Jan 19 19:59 UTC 1997

We don't have "democratic decision making" now about conference access. 
Every cf is 100% open to any user that logs in. The proposal is to extend
this practice to unregistered reading - but grandfathering in those cfs
that object, just to avoid the current argument. It is going too far (in
my opinion)  to extend this new idea of closing conferences to some
readers, to future new conferences.

response 408 of 624:

Jan 19 21:15 UTC 1997

#407, thats exactly what I've been saying, that those who support letting
confs decide would also logically support letting confs decide in ANY
case who can access their conf (I *know* Selena would like the ability for
instance to kick people out of Sexuality II)  Either Grex is committed to
open conferencing or it is not.  Open conferencing means the confs do not
decide in ANY instance, who can or cannot read their confs.

response 410 of 624:

Jan 19 21:39 UTC 1997

I don't think robh said he would leave Grex completely.