response 50 of 163:

Mar 1 12:59 UTC 2004

Re #44:  People being the flawed creatures that they are, I don't know
of any way of conferring authority that does not entail risk.  If Jamie
knows of some successful real-world enterprise that proves otherwise
and that Grex could emulate, I'd appreciate a pointer to it.

response 52 of 163:

Mar 1 17:09 UTC 2004

Of course not.  And I'd hope that Grex staff would take reasonable
steps to correct any damage, intentional or otherwise, inflicted by
anyone, staff or not.  In fact, the staff does that all the time,
mopping up after users who fill up the disk or do other harmful
stuff.

Having a staff member do a baddie like that took us by surprise.
I'd like to think that the staff would have ultimately decided to
do the right thing by way of correction.  But remember that you are
the person who decided to move right away to a member vote, effectively
taking the decision out of the staff's hands.

response 54 of 163:

Mar 1 21:58 UTC 2004

REMEMBER: They were still "discussing " it.

response 58 of 163:

Mar 2 13:30 UTC 2004

Re #53:  I'm a staff member, and I'm on record from early on as opposing
what Valerie did.  When the issue came to a vote, I voted in favor of
restoring the items and believe I am not the only staff member who did so.

In terms of the appropriateness of staff taking action, though, I think the
significant point in time is not when the voting started but when the
motion was made.  At that point, knowing that the issue was likely coming
up for a vote by the membership, I don't see how staff could have taken
action without subverting the concept of member control of policy.

response 60 of 163:

Mar 2 18:35 UTC 2004

I agree with remmers too. Once the motion was made, it would have been 
inappropriate for staff to act. Personally, I think this stunned 
everyone and the staff were wise not to act too quickly. I also think 
that with an issue like this where a lot of people's emotions are 
involved, it was appropriate to let the membership decide. I can live 
with that even though the decision didnt go the way I would have wanted 
it to go. 

response 62 of 163:

Mar 2 19:20 UTC 2004

While I can possibly buy the notion that once the motion was made staff was
reticent to act on their own, I think the major reason for inaction is that
this situation had never come up before, and it wasn't clear exactly what
should be done or how & who to do it.  If jp2 had known that the staff were
ending deliberation once the motion was made, he could have said something
like "the staff is free to do what it would have done had the motion not been
made", and that to me would not have resulted in any inappropriate action
having been taken.  I.e. if the staff already had a policy of restoring
mistakenly deleted items, then they would have proceded to do so, regardless
of any motion being made to do so (and in fact not requiring such a motion).

This all goes under the category of "live and learn".

response 64 of 163:

Mar 3 02:37 UTC 2004

So... the next time this happens, all that's necessary to prevent staff action
to restore the items is for some random member to make a proposal in Coop?

Are you sure that's the way you want it to work?

response 68 of 163:

Mar 3 20:18 UTC 2004

Re 66:  If anybody is having ethical problems, it's you.  

response 70 of 163:

Mar 3 20:41 UTC 2004

STICK 'EM UP