|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 120 responses total. |
richard
|
|
response 50 of 120:
| 
Jan 31 18:14 UTC 2000 |
query-- who's the current cfadmin anyway? Is it still Valerie? Maybe
we need more people designated cfadmins so the confs can be monitored
a little more closely. And perhaps a "fairwitness" conf, to provide
a forum for general fairwitnessing issues?
|
pfv
|
|
response 51 of 120:
|
Jan 31 18:45 UTC 2000 |
Which "issues"?
Dolts from india entering useless items?
The vast and complete vocabulary of "foul language"?
'Grexies' entering bullshit pseudo-politics/science?
I'd be more than happy with a 'twit' manpage.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 52 of 120:
|
Jan 31 19:17 UTC 2000 |
What's to monitor? What issues? As a fairwitness, I haven't found the
monitoring any problem: my conferences are on my .cflist, and I see new
activity any time I go into bbs. As far as issues, there simply haven't been
any in all the years I've been a fairwitness that were'nt resolved by a short
discussion in coop.
Nor have I found the level of activity of the current cfadmin to be a
problem. Grex does not need hall monitors.
|
aruba
|
|
response 53 of 120:
|
Jan 31 19:57 UTC 2000 |
Richard, type "!f cfadm" to see who the current cfadms are.
|
don
|
|
response 54 of 120:
|
Feb 1 01:11 UTC 2000 |
Isn't Walter Cramer (i) the main cfadm now?
|
remmers
|
|
response 55 of 120:
|
Feb 1 01:50 UTC 2000 |
Yes. Also, Valerie and I are backup cfadm's. In addition, void and
arthurp may still be cfadm's, but I don't think they're active
currently. (I'm on Backtalk and can't type "!f cfadm" to see the
current list.)
I agree with cmcgee's #52. I don't want to be a hall monitor.
|
davel
|
|
response 56 of 120:
|
Feb 1 01:58 UTC 2000 |
"... so the confs can be monitored a little more closely"? cfadm's job is
not to monitor conferences, but to do things like starting new conferences
and (as requested by the FWs) rolling them over. AFAICS that's being done
just fine. i, in particular, seems to monitor *that* kind of thing quite
closely.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 57 of 120:
|
Feb 1 02:18 UTC 2000 |
respond, pass, forget, quit, or ? for more options? !f cfadm
Login: cfadm Name: PicoSpan file owner
Directory: /bbs/home Shell: /bin/csh
Last login Sat Jan 1 23:12 (EST) on ttyr4 from 204.212.46.132
Mail aliased to:
valerie
remmers
scott
void
arthurp
i
No Plan.
!
Looks like the only one not mentioned is void.
|
i
|
|
response 58 of 120:
|
Feb 1 03:32 UTC 2000 |
Hmmm.
It's been 7 days since prp proposed the Decorum cf., but (ignoring the
past few days when prp hasn't been talking here) my feeling is that
there's still fruitful discussion and the Decorum idea is developing.
Should we create the cf., keep working on the idea here, or ???
|
robh
|
|
response 59 of 120:
|
Feb 1 04:05 UTC 2000 |
Re 57 - <robh notes that void was mentioned in response 55 of this item>
|
gelinas
|
|
response 60 of 120:
|
Feb 1 04:12 UTC 2000 |
I looked for that, too. Ah well.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 61 of 120:
|
Feb 1 06:32 UTC 2000 |
let's keep working the idea
|
richard
|
|
response 62 of 120:
|
Feb 1 13:58 UTC 2000 |
hmm...looks like !staff needs to be updated, it isnt reflecting most
of those folks as cfadmins
|
remmers
|
|
response 63 of 120:
|
Feb 1 18:15 UTC 2000 |
Re resp:58 - Since the proposal's been up for a week, I think it's
Paul's decision as to whether he wants the conference set up or not.
After this amount of discussion, our practice has been not to create a
conference until the proposer affirms that he or she wants it, and to
create it if that's the case.
|
spooked
|
|
response 64 of 120:
|
Feb 1 23:27 UTC 2000 |
To my knowledge staff aren't automatically cfadms, but I'm willing to help
out in that area if wanted.
|
prp
|
|
response 65 of 120:
|
Feb 3 22:34 UTC 2000 |
I'm still here. I'm just trying to read everything before commenting.
That takes time.
One think, the current state of things seems to have me as f-w. That's
ok, but keep in mind that I don't know what Grex policy is, nor would
I be likely to understand it easily. Given the way it is determined,
it is highly likely to be irrational.
Nobody has defended censoring spam.
Got to run.
|
remmers
|
|
response 66 of 120:
|
Feb 4 16:40 UTC 2000 |
I don't know how to respond to the irrationality issue, so I won't. As
far as fw policies go, I think they amount to "you can do what the
software permits you to do but not more". Perhaps there's an
expectation on the part of users that an fw will be sensitive to what
the participants in a conference want, but that's not a "policy" per se.
Anyway, if people are really dissatisfied with an fw's behavior, they
can always come to coop and propose a new conference on the same subject
matter but with a different fw. That's never happened, which suggests
that fw behavior isn't by and large a problem.
I kind of assumed you were interested in being FW of the conference
since you seem to have a clear vision of what you want it to be. But I
guess I was mistaken. In any case, the proposer doesn't have to be an
fw. But then there has to be some other volunteer.
|
prp
|
|
response 67 of 120:
|
Feb 4 20:04 UTC 2000 |
Ah, Anything the software allows. Now that's a policy I can understand
and comply with.
|
davel
|
|
response 68 of 120:
|
Feb 5 02:24 UTC 2000 |
People can also yell & scream a lot if they don't like a FWs style. This has
happened a couple of times, but yes, has really not been a problem.
(John, how would you go about proposing a new conference with the same subject
matter as agora?)
|
remmers
|
|
response 69 of 120:
|
Feb 7 11:17 UTC 2000 |
I think it's been done in this item...
|
i
|
|
response 70 of 120:
|
Feb 18 04:18 UTC 2000 |
Talking (via e-mail) with prp about setting up the decorum cf., i just
found out that prp was figuring on there being several conferences as
part of the decorum scheme - call 'em Active, Archive, Cutout, and
(maybe) Elsewhere. Admittedly, i haven't been following this discussion
very closely and am not much of a PicoSpan expert. I'm wondering whether
there are issues with creating multiple cf's (at the Pico-level at least)
from a single proposal, whether some clever scheme might accomplish prp's
goals without multiple cf's, etc. What do the experts think? (Could you
please explain the set-up, prp?)
|
remmers
|
|
response 71 of 120:
|
Feb 18 16:05 UTC 2000 |
I think we need more detail on what Paul has in mind.
|
prp
|
|
response 72 of 120:
|
Feb 18 21:01 UTC 2000 |
It is in there somewhere. Basically,
- Cutout has everything put in Decorum, but removed by the editor/f-w.
- Archive has everything else that was ever in Decorum.
- Active is another name for decorum.
- Elsewhere would have stuff linked from other conferneces. Making
it a bit like intro was designed to me. Note "maybe" in #70.
The plan is that Archive will eliminate the need for restarts and
Decorum01, decorum02, ...
At some point I suggested Agora as an alternative to Cutout. This got
no reaction at all.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 73 of 120:
|
Feb 18 23:15 UTC 2000 |
Well, all I was in favor of was trying the Decorum conference. as for
restarts, let's handle that when Decorum gets too bloated. Is Elsewhere a
second conference with prp as f-w that only contains items he wants to link
from other conferences? Or is it part of Decorum? since my belief is that
Decorum is yet another conference that has a very limited audience, I'd like
to wait until there are problems to solve, rather than creating FOUR new
conferences that I think have high potential to be "dead".
In friendly good humor,
The f-w of a "good idea" conference that died a-borning (PFC, if anyone
reacalls).
|
raven
|
|
response 74 of 120:
|
Feb 19 19:02 UTC 2000 |
I have to say that a conf predicated on the idea of the fw censoring
reponses *really* bothers me. I was very actively opposed to the
proposed sympathy conf for the same reason. Rather than rehashing
those arguments could someone just put a pointer to that conf/item?
Thanks... BTW I fw video, cyberpunk, and music so I have a wee bit of
expreience in these matters.
|