|
Grex > Oldcoop > #82: Member proposal restricting staff's ability to delete conference items. |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 108 responses total. |
naftee
|
|
response 50 of 108:
| 
Jan 18 18:20 UTC 2004 |
How about changing that to 'operation of the conferencing system software'
?
|
gull
|
|
response 51 of 108:
|
Jan 18 22:06 UTC 2004 |
That would probably be clearer.
|
aruba
|
|
response 52 of 108:
|
Jan 18 23:52 UTC 2004 |
This proposal wouldn't have prevented Valerie from doing what she did. NO
PROPOSAL can be made that will protect Grex from a staff member who decides
to break the rules. Period.
THanks for making the change, David. I still don't believe this motion is
a good idea, but I like it better than I did before.
|
naftee
|
|
response 53 of 108:
|
Jan 19 04:08 UTC 2004 |
re 51 Yea, it wouldn't need any explanation :-0 .
|
gull
|
|
response 54 of 108:
|
Jan 19 14:08 UTC 2004 |
Re resp:52: From the discussion, though, I've gathered that valerie
didn't actually break any rules. Or at very least there's no agreement
among staff members that she didn't have the right to do what she did.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 55 of 108:
|
Jan 19 16:25 UTC 2004 |
(Is there agreement among the rest of grex's members and users that she broke
the rules?)
|
jep
|
|
response 56 of 108:
|
Jan 19 16:45 UTC 2004 |
re resp:55: Not complete agreement, no.
I would say she didn't act in the best interests of Grex in initially
deleting her own items. I think she shouldn't have done it because of
her own interest in those items. She should have asked another staff
member to do it.
There was not a rule that she couldn't do what she did.
I'd say once she deleted her own, she established a precedent by which
she had to delete mine when I asked her to. There was still no rule
that a staff member couldn't delete items. There was some conflict of
interest when she deleted my items, but much less than when she deleted
her own.
|
jep
|
|
response 57 of 108:
|
Jan 19 17:32 UTC 2004 |
I think it's a good idea, when considering enacting a new rule, to
think about just a few things:
1) Will the rule be effective if it passes?
2) Is it necessary?
3) Will it have unintended consequences?
1) Valerie said she didn't think she was breaking any rules. At least
one other staff member agreed with her. This rule would certainly
clarify that staff members can't delete items in the same way.
Assuming she wouldn't break a rule, or more poignantly, that no other
staff member would, then this rule would be effective.
2) Would any staff member delete an item if this proposal doesn't
pass? I can't imagine that they would, given the fury of controversy
this has generated. I don't think many would have before the
controversy. I don't think this rule passes the "necessary" test at
this point, but I can understand if some people do think it's necessary.
3) There's no way to know if any change will have unintended
consequences. You just have to decide what might reasonably happen and
hope you don't miss anything.
Some potential consequences: Maybe some staff members won't be able to
live with the burden of the rule. Maybe one of them will react against
it. Maybe someone, some day, will not know about the rule,
inadvertently break it, and then get himself dismissed from the staff.
(We have no other way to discipline a staff member.) Maybe someone
will feel like his hands are tied and not take an action which is
necessary.
This proposal takes away from the freedom staff members have to use
their own initiative and feeling of reasonableness. That is it's
purpose. Does that transfer into other areas, too? I don't know
that. Maybe others have a better feel for it.
My conclusion is that this rule is not necessary, and also that it
unproductively counters what Grex expects from it's staff members.
David said it's not intended specifically for Valerie's actions. It's
hard to imagine this passing, or even being proposed, if it weren't for
Valerie's actions. I think if it had been passed a year ago, it would
have prevented her deleting any items, but now, as I said, I don't
think it prevents anything.
|
jp2
|
|
response 58 of 108:
|
Jan 19 18:32 UTC 2004 |
Regarding question 2, yes it is necessary, and you made it so.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 59 of 108:
|
Jan 19 19:00 UTC 2004 |
> This proposal wouldn't have prevented Valerie from doing what she did.
True, given the [software] *power* that staff & fw's have. But at least there
would be no doubt that her actions would have violated policy, undeniably,
and that consequences and counter-actions could be taken without need for more
member debate.
|
remmers
|
|
response 60 of 108:
|
Jan 19 19:47 UTC 2004 |
Re #56, last paragraph: "I'd say once she deleted her own, she
established a precedent by which she had to delete mine when I
asked her to."
I don't buy that reasoning. When Valerie stated a non-existent
"long-standing Grex policy that users are allowed to delete their
own items," in Item 68, I came in very quickly with a correction,
well before the divorce items were deleted. At some point in the
ensuing discussion, Valerie indicated that she may have been
mis-remembering policy. Making a mistake once does not obligate
a person to repeat it.
(Unfortunately, Valerie's contributions to the discussion are no
longer part of the public record, so I can't quote specifically
what she said.)
|
gull
|
|
response 61 of 108:
|
Jan 19 20:31 UTC 2004 |
Re resp:57: I think it's necessary because otherwise, as you pointed out
in resp:56, valerie's actions create a precedent. Now, without a new
rule, there's no logical reason why anyone else's item deletion request
should be turned down. (jp2's request that item 39 be deleted, for
example.) It's been established that you could have your items deleted
just by asking, so there's no reason to deny anyone else that ability.
I see this proposal as a way of changing that.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 62 of 108:
|
Jan 19 21:22 UTC 2004 |
How has it "been established that you could have your items deleted just
by asking"?
|
gull
|
|
response 63 of 108:
|
Jan 20 00:45 UTC 2004 |
Well, it worked for jep.
|
naftee
|
|
response 64 of 108:
|
Jan 20 01:48 UTC 2004 |
re 60 Her first response was something on the line of "Uhm, willcome and
naftee, they were my items and I could do anything I want to them".
|
cyklone
|
|
response 65 of 108:
|
Jan 20 02:29 UTC 2004 |
Re #63: So "been established that you may find a cooperative staff member
who will delete an item even if such deletion violated grex's professed
support of free and uncensored speech" would be more accurate, right?
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 66 of 108:
|
Jan 20 04:54 UTC 2004 |
resp:60 I agree-- I don't buy that reasoning, either. And even if
Valerie mis-remembered policy, I can't help but wonder-- wouldn't she
consider the controversy of it to ask just what the policy was?
No "once bitten, twice shy" here? Indeed, as her postings (as far as
I know) are scribbled out, it's hard to know.
resp:64 I remembered it being something about her name being on the
items, therefore making her the author and giving her ownership and
control, to be more specific.
|
remmers
|
|
response 67 of 108:
|
Jan 20 12:26 UTC 2004 |
I can tell you one thing that she said (in item 68, resp 4) because
I quoted it in resp. 11 of the same item: "It's longstanding Grex
policy that the person who created an item can delete it."
That's simply untrue, and supported neither by written policy nor
past practice. I indicated as much as soon as I saw her statement.
And I'm a staff member too. I disagree with assertions that her
actions created any sort of binding precedent.
|
naftee
|
|
response 68 of 108:
|
Jan 20 23:27 UTC 2004 |
re 67
> I indicated as much as soon as I saw her statement.
> And I'm a staff member too.
Right, and she sent mail to staff regarding this issue. So if you supposedly
disagree with her actions so much, home come it took you a full day to respond
to the item? You, like the rest of the staff and board, were hiding this
information from the GreX public. And then they blame the trolls. pfft.
|
tod
|
|
response 69 of 108:
|
Jan 21 00:03 UTC 2004 |
What a waste of a loyal user to both systems. I'd offer my ear to anyone that
could use it. Apparently, others would offer their "professional duty". Mary
did everything but tackle John and handcuff him..oh wait..
|
cyklone
|
|
response 70 of 108:
|
Jan 21 00:59 UTC 2004 |
OTOH, if her actions ultimately didn't harm jep (other than the breach
of trust which cannot be remedied by continued deletion) then I seriously
doubt there will be any harm ever from reinstating the items.
|
tod
|
|
response 71 of 108:
|
Jan 21 23:01 UTC 2004 |
Some folks feel differently I guess.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 72 of 108:
|
Jan 22 00:39 UTC 2004 |
Obviously. I just wish they would do a better job of describing exactly what
they are trying to say. So far all I've heard is outlandish speculation. The
only "harm" I've seen described in any detail is from jep himself, who
apparently is concerned about his son stumbling across the item. Of course,
his son will quite likely stumble into coop as well, so the cat is out of the
bag. Unless the next vote is to delete all the coop items discussing the
issue.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 73 of 108:
|
Jan 24 01:08 UTC 2004 |
Unless the argument is that he couldn't extrapolate as much gory
detail from here *cough* (right)
|
cyklone
|
|
response 74 of 108:
|
Jan 24 03:32 UTC 2004 |
Yup, the cat is out of the bag. You can't unring the bell. Too bad jep and
his apologists can't handle the truth.
|