|
Grex > Coop9 > #27: Motion: To allow anonymous reading via Backtalk | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 624 responses total. |
rcurl
|
|
response 512 of 624:
| 
Jan 31 17:43 UTC 1997 |
sigh....that "who" in the first sentence *must* be a "that", to be
grammatically correct. Also, the "it" in the third sentence has no clear
antecedent. I suggest that sentence we worded: "Such reading may be by web
browsers or by other means of access."
|
richard
|
|
response 513 of 624:
|
Jan 31 18:06 UTC 1997 |
I disagree with the new wording of #2. Staff didnt **appoint* any of the
fair witnesses. The FW's serve at the will of the confereess. Therefore it
should not be considered staff's prerogative to remove one's fw abilities
unless they represent a *system* security issue. Which this does not.
|
richard
|
|
response 514 of 624:
|
Jan 31 18:24 UTC 1997 |
Also #2 opens up a whole can of worms, because once staff agrees to
supervise fw's in one instance, that will be used as precedent to force
staff to get full time into the business of fw monitoring. FW's should
only be removed under extreme circumstances, requiring considerable
desire among the members of that particular conf and a *board* vote (the
staff is not supposed to make or presume to make those decisions, they
are there to maintain the system, not govern it)
The *only* way the no-linking policy is practical is if the software
enforces it.
|
dpc
|
|
response 515 of 624:
|
Jan 31 21:27 UTC 1997 |
Although I oppose the motion, I suggest that for clarity the first
couple of sentences read:
Under Grex' old policy, conferences on Grex are readable by anybody
who creates an account on Grex (registered users). Grex' new policy,
set forth below, enables reading of conferences by people who do
not have accounts (unregistered users).
|
e4808mc
|
|
response 516 of 624:
|
Feb 1 01:52 UTC 1997 |
I like the new text valerie proposed, with the nit-picks from rcurl and dpc
inserted.
THis makes very clear what the proposal is, and its obvious consequences.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 517 of 624:
|
Feb 1 08:21 UTC 1997 |
No, no - both of dpc's "who"s should be "that"s. I would also argue against
- again - any wording that refers to an "old policy". Policy statements should
stand on their own. The wording in #515 is really part of argumentation or
explanation, and becomes moot when adopted.
|
remmers
|
|
response 518 of 624:
|
Feb 1 14:21 UTC 1997 |
The more I look past the first sentence of part 2, the less I
like what I see. It gives a policing role to cfadm, a position
which has done very well without such duties. I'm still a backup
cfadm but would reconsider continuing to be one if I was
expected to be an enforcer.
|
dpc
|
|
response 519 of 624:
|
Feb 1 17:38 UTC 1997 |
Quit quibbling about what should/should not be inserted in a policy
statement, rcurl. There are no rules about what a policy statement
should contain. Clarity is important.
|
richard
|
|
response 520 of 624:
|
Feb 1 18:58 UTC 1997 |
This is turning into the most complex, bureacratic proposal
likely in the history of grex. A little, nice idea-- making
conferences available for browsing by unregistered users-- is
turning into an eight-headed monster. What good is the idea if
we have to put ALL these rules into place, try to enforce them,
and deal with subsequent repercussions. Grex works best from
what I've seen when things are kept simple. Straight policy that
doesnt require interpretation, enforcement or bureacracy.
"Grex welcomes unregistered users to browse any or all of its
conferences to get an idea of what we are about. Our
conferences are open and free to everyone, and if you like what
you see, please by all means sign up for a login and join in the
fun!"
Thats all it has to say. Why are we strangling ourselves with
rules and bureacracy when this is just a simple gesture to
encourage users to join grex?
|
scott
|
|
response 521 of 624:
|
Feb 1 20:53 UTC 1997 |
But richard, you were one of the people saying "it doesn't cover xxx
situation, it needs to have more language covering that".
|
richard
|
|
response 522 of 624:
|
Feb 1 22:38 UTC 1997 |
#522...only by way of pointing out the flaws in the proposal. I never
said that adding teeth here and there would suddenly make the proposal
workable. The flaws here are basic.
|
jenna
|
|
response 523 of 624:
|
Feb 2 05:30 UTC 1997 |
richard, you were the one who created an item and threatned to get arond
it... gods, some people never see their own foortprints.
I STILL THINK conferences should always be able to decide and toggle
though I see raven, some problems with togling from open to closed as
in what do yoiu do with the old file for the web, or whatever...
might be a pain in the ass. But I always assert new conferences
as well as old ones should be able to decide. That's my beef with this.
As for everybody's and and that's, it doens't really matter. the idea is
for everybody to understand it now and later, when voting, when looking at
in in the future
and I think whether they;'e who's or that's the proposal is already
at that level... *jenna wanders off in search of her driver's liscense
and a xerox machine*
|
srw
|
|
response 524 of 624:
|
Feb 2 06:04 UTC 1997 |
Well. This is a compromise. So it's not too surprising that you
have a beef with it. I would prefer all conferences to be open. I
have a beef too. What we are doing is compromisiong by allowing
exceptions, but only those conferences that are currently in
existence and for which the current participants and fws feel
that they need an exception. I think it is a workable compromise.
I think I learned a different grammar than rcurl. I learned that
you *never* use "that" for people. I larned that you should use
"who" even in a restrictive sense, when it is for people.
Possibly I learned wrong. It was a long time ago. I think even if
it haa grammar problems it reads better than with rcurl's
nitpicks, but I don't feel strongly. I am more interested in
voting on a nongrammatical but binding resolution than arguing
over it some more.
I wouldn't mind if valerie pulled the teeth she inserted, but I
wouldn't vote against it if she doesn't, either.
|
valerie
|
|
response 525 of 624:
|
Feb 2 07:34 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 526 of 624:
|
Feb 2 07:36 UTC 1997 |
Read Fowler's ... Usage, Steve. "Which" and "who" are the describing
or non-restrictive relative pronouns, for things and people respecitvely,
but "that", and only "that", is the restrictive or defining relative pronoun
for both things and people. The misuse of these is, however extremely common,
nearly to the point that the error is "accepted". Some time ago I figured it
out, and now I am a "purist" (and prosletyzer) for the correct usage, because
it allows clearer exposition. I'll start an item in language on this, and
see if I can find any other "purists" (or make some).
|
tsty
|
|
response 527 of 624:
|
Feb 2 10:22 UTC 1997 |
why not... <hullo?> ... why not try out intro.cf and see how that
single, focused conference works out, ok?
|
remmers
|
|
response 528 of 624:
|
Feb 2 12:18 UTC 1997 |
Re #525: Glad you agree that it's a monstrosity. My humble
suggestion would be to revise it to remove its monstrousness and
keep a reasonable balance in accomodating reasonable viewpoints.
I hate to see immature behavior on the part of certain users
become Grex's problem any more than is absolutely unavoidable,
or see policy written as a reaction to such behavior.
|
raven
|
|
response 529 of 624:
|
Feb 2 18:34 UTC 1997 |
re # 528 I think it is somewhat immature on your part to make a blanket
statement that all people who oppose unregistered reading for all
confernces are immature. I never threatened to leave Grex or circumvent
Grex's policies, yet I support some version of compramise (perhaps a new
compramise lite, fat free :-)) that will address the needs of both people
who are in favor of unreistered reading, and those who feel that don't
want certain conferences readable by unregistered users.
The reason this proposal is so complex, is that this is a complex issue,
unlike what Richard would assert conferences on Grex are different, and
this policy needs address those complexities & differences thus it's
somewhat byzantine nature.
I agree putting "teeth" in the linking issue is unnecessary and creates
bureacracy where it isn't needed on Grex. I have problems with plank #5
and I agree with Jenna that new conferences *should* be able to decide
whether they want to be readable by unregistered users but I can live with
#5 for the sake of compramise.
|
dpc
|
|
response 530 of 624:
|
Feb 2 19:49 UTC 1997 |
#5 I can't live with. I'm glad Valerie is considering withdrawing/
re-doing her proposal. What is a camel? A horse put together
by a committee. 8-)
|
ryan1
|
|
response 531 of 624:
|
Feb 2 20:23 UTC 1997 |
Who is to say people are immature if they do decide to leave Grex if
Grex allows unregistered reading? If somebody plans to leave Grex
because of this, it is their choice, not a sign of immaturity. If Grex
allows unregistered reading (which I strongly oppose) I won't leave
Grex, but I will be a *lot* more cautious about what I decide to post.
Some people are not willing to be a little more cautious in exchange for
unregistered reading. That is why they will leave Grex, not because
they are immature.
|
snafu
|
|
response 532 of 624:
|
Feb 2 22:16 UTC 1997 |
Just for an odd suggestion, how about if we were to not let un-registered or
anonymous readers into ANY of the confs... instead make ONE conf, into which
we link items that the general populace might find interesting... So, when
the people from the web tr to conference, they ge that one conf, and thats
ALL they can read...
|
nephi
|
|
response 533 of 624:
|
Feb 3 00:30 UTC 1997 |
Like many others, I feel that the above compromise is an
awful monstrosity, although I really do value the effort
that Valerie is putting into getting this thing worked
out.
I think that the simplest compromise is to have just the
Intro conference be a webpage. If the purpose is only
to advertise Grex's conferences, then the people who want
accountless reading won't be upset. Also, I don't think
that anyone who has stated that he or she is opposed to
accountless reading of all the conferences has stated
that he or she would be upset by accountless reading of
the Intro conference, provided that linking was done in
the courteous manner for which robh is well-known. It
seems like the logical solution.
However, maybe people want certain conferences open for
reasons other than simple advertisement of Grex. Why
does Valerie want the Cooking conference to be a webpage?
Why does Richard want the Politics conference to be a web
page? Why does Void want the Gay conference to be a web
page? Is it a matter of pride of some sort? Perhaps
something a little more deep? Has this whole debate
become one of personal validation by now?
|
nephi
|
|
response 534 of 624:
|
Feb 3 00:33 UTC 1997 |
(snafu slipped in)
|
richard
|
|
response 535 of 624:
|
Feb 3 01:36 UTC 1997 |
I think just having the Intro conf available to unregistered users is
preferable to Valerie's compromise. Give all fw's co-fw status intheIntro
conf...or anew similar conf. This way they can link inany items fromtheir
confs without it beinganyone else's decision. Simply state that
each current conf is asked to contributeitems to thisconf. This way every
confwill have items that are available forunregistered reading, but only
selected items.
This would be a fair solution as long as every fw has the ability to link
tothis conf.
|
scg
|
|
response 536 of 624:
|
Feb 3 04:49 UTC 1997 |
The reason I think it would be neat to have a lot of the less active
conferences I participate in be accessable to people on the web is that I'm
hoping people will see the discussions and decide they have something to add,
hopefully becoming regular participants.
|