response 563 of 624:

Feb 8 19:47 UTC 1997

I still dont see the logic in this.  Why is allowing confs to decide if
unregistered readers can access okay but not allowing them to decide all
access issues okay?  If you are going to say that in allother instances confs
cannot decide who may access theirconf, it is hypocritical to say they can
in this instance.

And I dissagree with SRW that a bad law is okay if few people are going  take
advantage of it.  Thats really unethical.

response 565 of 624:

Feb 8 20:18 UTC 1997

I suppose SRW would have said the holocaust was okay if it only targeted
red-headed albino jews.  After all, if only one or five people were killed
instead of a million, it wouldnt really matter right?

If a proposal is flawed, it is flawed.

response 567 of 624:

Feb 8 22:48 UTC 1997

I just think the policies here need to be consistent.  If we let ALL 
conferences have the option of being open or closed to any status of 
user, then FW's could admit anyone they choose, with the only proviso 
being that once admitted, a user cannot later be kicked out.  If *this* 
was the policy, then letting unregistered usage being optional would 
make sense.

Currently, Grex does not allow fw's of confs to make such decisions to 
be closed, so the only way to remain consistent would be to also 
disallow the confs to be closed to unregistered users as well.

response 569 of 624:

Feb 9 07:39 UTC 1997

You seem to have forgotten that this proposed policy has no effect at all
upon registered users (so the fw does *not* have options for "any status
of user) and that unregistered web readers gain no status by looking
in on conferences so they must simply accept the system as they find it.
If a cf gets closed to such, some may not longer be able to read it, but
they are hardly "kicked out", since they were idle readers in the first
place. (I don't know how much information about Grex unregistered readers
will be 'forced' to see, but they could be told that cfs accessible to them
may come and go but if they want to continue reading any that go, they can
just register (in fewer words, preferably).

response 571 of 624:

Feb 9 19:04 UTC 1997

TS (#568) slipped in.

response 573 of 624:

Feb 9 20:46 UTC 1997

#572...putting the compromise in place without resolving those questions would
be pointless.  The compromise either works or doesnt work based on the answers
to those questions.

I reiterate that so few users oppose the basic policy that it is simply better
and simpler to say that all confs should be open to unregistered readers.
Period.  Nobureacracy.  No rules and contingincies.  There surely were more
people opposed to grex's original open access policy than opposed to this and
grex has worked just fine witht hat.

response 575 of 624:

Feb 10 01:11 UTC 1997

Valerie, at this point you have to pick one, and have a vote on it.
You probably want to try to guess which compromise is more likely to succeed,
and word it that way. If it fails, I am sure we'll have another vote with the
compromise flipflopped, but we have to have one first.

I have a preference, of course, but I think I will vote for either
compromise on #3, because I think the important parts lie elsewhere. It is
OK with me to have a flawed policy, if it makes more of the users happy than
an "ideal" policy. Another way of saying that is that it is OK with me to
sacrifice a few conferences to keep their participants happy as long as most
of the conferences can be viewed. That's my pragmatic point of view, and I'm
sorry that Richard is so idealistic on this question that he resorts to such
inflammatory arguments. It is unbecoming.

response 577 of 624:

Feb 10 07:31 UTC 1997

Fiddlesticks. None of the proposals that have been made are necessarily
"flawed", and this building will not fall down no matter which is adopted. 
Everything we do in a democracy engages some kind of dialogue and hence
compromise. Maybe you think democracy is flawed - and it is by your
requirement of ideality, but as (I think it was) Churchill said,
"democracy is the world's worst form of government, except for all the
others". 

response 579 of 624:

Feb 10 15:46 UTC 1997

Lets have this version and the original version votedon at the same
time...that way the odds are increased that atleastone will pass.

response 581 of 624:

Feb 10 19:58 UTC 1997

Re #579: it is better to conduct one vote at a time (unless the subjects
do not overlap). Conceivably, both could pass, which leaves a dilemma.

response 583 of 624:

Feb 10 21:12 UTC 1997

sincem ost would vote for one or the other, butnot both, I think the odds of
both passing are sim and none.  Conceivably, both could fail.  Butthat could
fail.  When this was deferred form a board vote, Valerie promised to put the
original proposal up for a board vote. I dont see how circumstances have
changed.  Lets have a voate on both.

response 585 of 624:

Feb 10 21:57 UTC 1997

Re #583 - you are correct: it didn't hit me until I had posted. I was
thinking you were proposing *separate* votes for the two proposals. If
members could only vote for one or the other, however, it is probable
that neither would be adopted, as it is unlikely just one would get 2/3 of
the total votes cast. Therefore I oppose simultaneous votes on two proposals,
by either protocol. Each one should be voted up or down separately (if it
comes to that).