response 5 of 44:

Jun 22 15:52 UTC 2000

I think the situation with the decorum conference was that
in the public discussion the person appeared to be proposing
a single conference, but in subsequent private discussions
with cfadm it came out that he actually wanted four inter-
related conferences.  At that point, Walter reopened the
public discussion (properly so), and then the whole issue
was rendered moot by the proposer appearing to lose
interest and disappearing from Grex, so that no new
conferences actually got created.

I don't think this is a comparable situation, since Kevin is
asking for two conferences up front.  Users are certainly
allowed to fw more than one conference, so I don't see why
two simultaneous proposals by the same person can't be
considered.

response 7 of 44:

Jun 23 23:41 UTC 2000

Assuming asking for two conferences at once is a "bad" thing, I would withdraw
my request for a Steve conference.

For the record, I'm not interested in being FairWitness of the Steve
conference (assuming it's created)

It's difficult to explain precisely what the conferences would be like.
I suppose in a very broad sense, the Steve conference would be for waxing over
profound thoughts revolving around shitdicks. The Twinkie conference would
be for accusing people of being shitdicks, and a continual discussion of
reasons I will scribble responses, as well as an exchange of insults. Most
likely, there will also be significant space dedicated to women I would like
to have sex with.

response 9 of 44:

Jun 24 03:03 UTC 2000

Hey now, ratboy...

response 11 of 44:

Jun 26 06:55 UTC 2000

re: 8 -- Strange...when I type that, I can't connect. But, when I type
http://hippiefaggot.com, it opens up my mail program, and has
"ea@cyberspace.org" filled out in the "To:" field.

response 13 of 44:

Jun 27 04:41 UTC 2000

No you don't, bitch.

response 15 of 44:

Jun 27 15:06 UTC 2000

Technically we should probably wait a couple of days, since
the proposal was made on the 21st, Grex was off the net for
three days, and we're supposed to allow a minimum of five
days for proposal discussion.  After that, I see no reason
not to go ahead.

If Michael's the FW, I'll even join the durn thing.

response 17 of 44:

Jun 27 17:50 UTC 2000

Stay the fuck out of the Twinkie Conference.

response 19 of 44:

Jun 27 18:05 UTC 2000

Re #17: I guess I'm not gonna stay out of the twinkie
conference.  Such a shame -- I'm sure you would've
turned it into a regular Camelot, but now...  Well,
you know.

Re #18: Yes, by all means, please create both the 
twinkie cf and the steve cf as soon as possible.

response 21 of 44:

Jun 28 03:12 UTC 2000

Okay, here's the situation i'm seeing now: 
 - twinkie proposed the twinkie cf on 6/21 and wants to be its fw.
 - twinkie proposed the steve cf on 6/21, but doesN'T want to be its fw.
 - md wants to be fw of the steve cf.

If this lasts a few days, i'll create both cf's with those lone fw's.
Anyone else want to fw?  (I'd say you'd need either ok from the 1st
fw or popular acclaim to qualify.) 

(My biggest interest is avoiding having to do the work of setting up
conferences that quickly die on the launch pad.  Hence my disinterest 
in letting someone request & get multiple conferences at once, rushing 
to set up one-fw conferences that seem to be attracting very few "I 
want to join that" comments, etc.  Disclaimer:  Other cfadm's, board, 
sane persons, etc. may not share these views.)  

response 23 of 44:

Jun 28 04:31 UTC 2000

I'm assuming that that kind of stuff will only be discussed where other
people can be disgusted by it.  Since nobody disgusted by the conference
will join it, it will rapidly become boring for everyone else and die on
the vine.  Seems fine to me.

response 25 of 44:

Jun 28 05:38 UTC 2000

One point of view might be that since you can't keep "them" out of the 
neighborhood, if you give 'em their own clubhouse, maybe they'll stay 
there, and leave decent folk alone.

response 27 of 44:

Jun 28 11:22 UTC 2000

I was actually surprised by the lack of discussion this time on the "let's
not create conferences that will die quickly and clutter up Grex" topic
I remember when hhsrat wanted a conf, we discussed his "reusing" Inbetween,
and in several other cf requests, the same issue has come up.  In fact, there
was a great debate about consolidating and/or removing old conferences at one
point.  

So my question is: does this cf help us attract and keep new members. 
There has, over the years, been a great deal of discussion about the
appropriate height of the fence to keep Web access controlable(sp?).  Make
no mistake, we DO construct barriers: can't get mail on Grex through the
web (much to my inconvenience when traveling), and we do use social
pressure to make Grex the kind of community we want it to be. 


So why are we discussing a cf that we think will die quickly, and not have
an audience?