|
Grex > Coop9 > #27: Motion: To allow anonymous reading via Backtalk | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 624 responses total. |
omni
|
|
response 487 of 624:
| 
Jan 27 04:46 UTC 1997 |
I have no reservations whatsoever of the anonymous reading of any
of the conferances I manage. (hockey, micros, cinema, world, arts)
In the Micros and the sports conf, I appear to be the sole f-w
and in the others, (arts, world, and cinema) I am not the only voice,
and there might be opposing points of view.
|
valerie
|
|
response 488 of 624:
|
Jan 27 07:50 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 489 of 624:
|
Jan 27 18:05 UTC 1997 |
Re-enter the motion to be voted upon (maybe even in a new item), preceded
by an explanation (or even folowed by). The reason explanations should not
be in policy statements is that they change or become moot when the policy
is adopted.
Another way is to write out both the old policy and then the new policy
(noting clearly which is which). In a more flexible medium, this is done
within one statement by (for example) underlining new text and
crossing-through text to be omitted. The latter is not practical here
because of term limits for some users.
However, I don't think there is any prior written policy to change, in
this case. The only contrast is with past custom or practice. Anyway, when
all is said and done, what is most important is that voters know what the
policy *will be*. They can read the discussion for the rest.
|
valerie
|
|
response 490 of 624:
|
Jan 28 13:50 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
remmers
|
|
response 491 of 624:
|
Jan 28 18:04 UTC 1997 |
(Re #488 (good grief, we're up to almost 500 responses): I
didn't want to change wording on the ballot after the polls had
opened and people had already been voting. However, unlike Rane,
I'm not averse to having explanatory wording in motions. My
attitude is that it's a particular member's motion and so
ultimately the wording is up to the member.)
|
srw
|
|
response 492 of 624:
|
Jan 28 19:59 UTC 1997 |
I can see the wisdom in Rane's advice, but acknowledge that the wording
is Valerie's to decide.
|
valerie
|
|
response 493 of 624:
|
Jan 29 01:06 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 494 of 624:
|
Jan 29 18:30 UTC 1997 |
There is another type of motion, which is a *resolution*, which has a bunch
of Whereases, and a Be It Resolved. The Be It Resolved is the *active*
motion. The whole kaboodle woud go into the minutes. Resolutions are seldom
used for internal consumption, however: they are usually directed to influence
some outside agency.
Remmers, it just comes with experience. I suppose it is like learning to code
well in C++.
|
ladymoon
|
|
response 495 of 624:
|
Jan 30 02:49 UTC 1997 |
The current wording is USELESS. Just like so many other things and people
around here is USELESS.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 496 of 624:
|
Jan 30 05:30 UTC 1997 |
Now, is that a democratic, consensual, attitude?
|
tsty
|
|
response 497 of 624:
|
Jan 30 06:48 UTC 1997 |
sure ... 'spress yourself without fear (?).
|
remmers
|
|
response 498 of 624:
|
Jan 30 12:06 UTC 1997 |
Re #494: Hey, I know about that "whereas" stuff. I suggested it
to Valerie as a possible form for the future motions of this
sort.
|
raven
|
|
response 499 of 624:
|
Jan 30 16:34 UTC 1997 |
re # 495 It would be helpfull if you defined *how* the motion is useless.
Or perhaps you were just being negativie for negativities sake?
|
richard
|
|
response 500 of 624:
|
Jan 30 17:39 UTC 1997 |
The current wordingis useless because the softwware cant enforce
theno-linkingfrom closed confs ban, because it doesnt preclude guest accounts
being created, because it puts a bandaid over a problem rather than really
solve it one way or anotehr. I think plenty of folks would ratehr have no
unregistered reading at all than to have this proposal. Its not worth it to
do anything half way. I*f this is going to be done, lets do it...all or
nothing.
|
jenna
|
|
response 501 of 624:
|
Jan 30 22:45 UTC 1997 |
richard... i think most of the people who don't ant it at all still
don't really want it, and most of the peope who do want it in general
still want it. thus, the nature of compromse to make everybody tolerate
something.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 502 of 624:
|
Jan 31 01:10 UTC 1997 |
So when we gonna vote?
|
janc
|
|
response 503 of 624:
|
Jan 31 02:06 UTC 1997 |
Well, not till the current vote is over, at least.
|
ladymoon
|
|
response 504 of 624:
|
Jan 31 06:05 UTC 1997 |
Some people seem to be unimpressed with threats. Well, here comes one, so be
prepared to be unimpressed.
If this *thing* that the compromise has turned into passes, and the first
wording of the compromise by valerie does not get re-proposed and passed, then
I assure you of ONE thing- I will make Richard look like NOTHING in how much
argumentitive hell I will give you over EVERY policy put forth in this
conference. I'm sure that will look oh-so=-pretty to your precious web
audience, seeing this places policy conference as being worse than M-Net's
ever was. And don't think I can't do it- I've actually been quite reserved
in the past, up till now . .
|
rcurl
|
|
response 505 of 624:
|
Jan 31 06:28 UTC 1997 |
Go to it....
|
mary
|
|
response 506 of 624:
|
Jan 31 13:16 UTC 1997 |
Is that the proactive version of "Have at it"? ;-)
I'll not scold selena here becuase I sincerely believe
she is doing the best she can do.
|
remmers
|
|
response 507 of 624:
|
Jan 31 13:56 UTC 1997 |
Now that the vote program is all set up, I can start the vote
as soon as the current vote is over and I have the definitive
final wording from Valerie.
|
valerie
|
|
response 508 of 624:
|
Jan 31 15:05 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
valerie
|
|
response 509 of 624:
|
Jan 31 15:12 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
remmers
|
|
response 510 of 624:
|
Jan 31 16:53 UTC 1997 |
I think that the issue of whether a person is being reasonable
should be taken into account in deciding whether it is
reasonable to accomodate them. You can't please everyone.
I think it is also a mistake to yield to "threats".
|
raven
|
|
response 511 of 624:
|
Jan 31 17:09 UTC 1997 |
I have to say that I'm disapointed that there wasn't more discussion of
my objections to plank # 5 of the proposal. *Why* are we limiting the
freedom of conferences to switch back in forth in status as they might choose
to do?
|