|
Grex > Coop13 > #82: Member proposal restricting staff's ability to delete conference items. |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 108 responses total. |
md
|
|
response 78 of 108:
| 
Jan 25 13:36 UTC 2004 |
No response, no "exception." I'm not even gonna look at it.
We should *expect* whoever is on duty to pause the DVD he's watching
just long enough to do the least number of keystrokes on the Grex box
needed to delete the items and site-ban the account, and never devote
another second's worth of thought to the matter.
|
scott
|
|
response 79 of 108:
|
Jan 25 14:17 UTC 2004 |
"Duty"? We have people on "duty"???
|
md
|
|
response 80 of 108:
|
Jan 25 21:18 UTC 2004 |
Whatever!
|
gull
|
|
response 81 of 108:
|
Feb 6 16:06 UTC 2004 |
I'm not sure where we stand in the voting timeline on this. Could the
voteadmin fill me in? Regardless, to minimize confusion, I don't want
it to come up for a vote until after the results of the current votes
have been announced.
Here is what will probably be the final wording. I realize some of you
are never going to vote for anything like this on general principle, and
that's fine. I'm still willing to entertain suggestions for
refinements, though.
--- %< ---- cut here ----
Grex staff and conference fairwitnesses shall not remove items from
conferences. The following exceptions are made:
- Fairwitnesses of conferences where item removal is part of clearly
stated conference policy may remove items in accordance with that
policy. If no policy is posted, items may not be removed by fairwitnesses.
- Items that contain information that is unlawful to distribute or
otherwise presents a legal threat to Grex may be removed, IF the less
disruptive method of erasing individual responses is not sufficient.
- Items that adversely affect the operation of the conferencing system
software may be removed.
None of this should be construed to affect an individual user's right to
erase ("scribble" in Picospan) their own responses.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 82 of 108:
|
Feb 6 17:52 UTC 2004 |
Are entire conferences retired, archived, weeded out, to free up space or
something like that? If so, I guess that should be covered...
|
gull
|
|
response 83 of 108:
|
Feb 6 18:45 UTC 2004 |
I think that weeding out old items woudl be covered by individual
conference policy. (I fully expect, for example, that the 'classified'
conference would set a conference policy of deleting items after a set
period of time.) Archiving or "rolling over" conferences doesn't
actually involve deleting any items, so it wouldn't fall under this
policy. I suppose the deletion of a whole conference would be a grey
area; if you think it's necessary I could add a specific exception for that.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 84 of 108:
|
Feb 6 21:52 UTC 2004 |
If this proposal is meant to be "binding" upon bbs administration, then there
should probably be something in there about entire-conference item deletion.
Or maybe a disclaimer saying that this policy does not apply to that.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 85 of 108:
|
Feb 8 16:37 UTC 2004 |
After all the debate, both in this item and in the others on the general
subject, I think I understand what this proposal is hoped to accomplish,
but I think it misses the target. I think a much simpler proposal would
accomplish the goal in a much more straightforward manner:
Proposed: An item's author, the person who entered the
item in a conference, shall have the authority to remove
that item from the original conference and any conferences
to which it has been linked. If the software installed
on grex does not give the author sufficient capability,
the author may seek assistance from staff and fairwitnesses.
A single vote, yes or no, will settle the question until someone brings it
up again. If gull does not want to amend his proposal to use this text,
I will hope that his proposal fails and enter this as yet another proposal
on the subject.
NB: Although I am in favour of the proposal as I have stated it, I expect
that it would fail. I think the clarity it would provide worth another
24 days of anguish. I would also hope that the discussion of it would
be informed by the preceding discussions and so not replow infertile ground.
It occurs to me that failed proposals are usually not recorded and so are
often not seen as establishing an affirmative policy. I would appreciate
assistance in re-wording this proposal to permit appropriate recording
of the ultimate result. Unless and until gull accepts this amendment to
his proposal, please use e-mail to make suggestions to me. Note that I
have my mail from grex forwarded to my permanent address,
gelinas@umich.edu
Use whichever address is most convenient for you. Replies are promised,
and I will give credit where it is due, if I enter this proposal myself.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 86 of 108:
|
Feb 8 16:41 UTC 2004 |
If this proposal is passed, it will do a lot to choke off discussion, because
anyone who doesn't like how the discussion in their item goes can just nuke
it.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 87 of 108:
|
Feb 8 16:42 UTC 2004 |
Arguments like that are why I expect it to fail. And also why I would
probably vote against it myself.
|
boltwitz
|
|
response 88 of 108:
|
Feb 8 16:45 UTC 2004 |
Weirdo.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 89 of 108:
|
Feb 8 16:50 UTC 2004 |
And the work-arounds would be really annoying (entering duplicate copies of
items, for example).
|
boltwitz
|
|
response 90 of 108:
|
Feb 8 16:54 UTC 2004 |
And the Jews would have a field day.
|
tod
|
|
response 91 of 108:
|
Feb 8 18:11 UTC 2004 |
Items almost invariably attract a bit of drift. This proposal would be
inviting abuse by the authors much like Grex staff by not restoring vandalized
items invites abuse by popcorn
|
gull
|
|
response 92 of 108:
|
Feb 8 18:49 UTC 2004 |
Re resp:85: The problem with that proposal, as I see it, is if it were
in place it would not have made it clear that staff don't have the right
to remove items on their own initiative. Therefore, Valerie would still
have been able to claim that she wasn't acting against any set policy.
I just don't feel voting *down* a proposal sets a clear policy.
|
gull
|
|
response 93 of 108:
|
Feb 8 18:57 UTC 2004 |
I'm going to borrow a quote from janc's response 140 in item 106, about
Valerie's deletion of her items, to show why I feel this proposal is
necessary:
"She thought it was obviously within her rights and expected others to
think so too."
Obviously this is a point of policy that has to be clarified, one way or
another. Valerie believed that, as a staff member, she could delete her
personal items and that this was perfectly legitimate. If you believe
that's wrong, you should consider voting yes on my proposal. If you
believe that this is a power staff should have, then vote no.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 94 of 108:
|
Feb 8 19:47 UTC 2004 |
I think you miss the point, gull: she thought she had the right AS AUTHOR
to delete the items she had entered. AS STAFF, she ASSISTED the author
in accomplishing the author's desires. Similarly, she thought that jep
AS AUTHOR had the right to delete his items.
The only mistake was in thinking that authors had the right to remove
their items. My proposal, if properly worded, will clarify the consensus
of the grex members.
I cannot vote for your proposal because it ties the hands of staff without
addressing the real question.
If authors cannot remove their items, then there is no reason for staff
to think they can remove items for the authors, either.
|
naftee
|
|
response 95 of 108:
|
Feb 8 20:04 UTC 2004 |
Unless they're on a power trip
|
mary
|
|
response 96 of 108:
|
Feb 8 21:44 UTC 2004 |
She thought she had the right as an AUTHOR who could use CFADM power
and not worry too much about the fact other staff and board members
were already telling her to slow down.
Let's not rewrite history so soon, please.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 97 of 108:
|
Feb 8 21:51 UTC 2004 |
In the case of the second deletion, you are probably right, Mary, but not in
the case of the removal of her own items. Let's not re-write history so soon,
please.
|
mary
|
|
response 98 of 108:
|
Feb 8 21:58 UTC 2004 |
She couldn't delete HER items as the author. She had to invoke
superuser power to get the job done. If she hadn't been in meltdown
mode I suspect she would have asked herself why that was necessary.
Valerie herself has stated she just wanted them gone. Not much else
mattered. Of course, the only way to prove that is to republish
responses she has since scribbled. Would that be okay for me to
do?
|
gull
|
|
response 99 of 108:
|
Feb 8 22:09 UTC 2004 |
At least two staff members and two board members have expressed strong
objections to this proposal. While I still feel it's important that
Grex set a formal policy on this issue, because I think without it,
we're doomed to another repeat of this whole scandal, I'm a bit hesitant
to do something that would push Grex in a direction that the staff
doesn't want to deal with. The last thing I want to be accused of is
contributing to staff member turnover. So at this point I'm
reconsidering whether to bring this to a vote. I haven't made a
decision yet.
|
tod
|
|
response 100 of 108:
|
Feb 8 22:13 UTC 2004 |
Staff member turnover isn't always a bad thing.
|
mary
|
|
response 101 of 108:
|
Feb 8 22:14 UTC 2004 |
My 2 cents, David. Don't. What happened here with Valerie was an
isolated, rogue event. I suspect we could go on for a very long
time before the personalities and events would come together in
such a way as to provoke a similiar episode.
Staff doesn't need more rules. I'd vote any such motion down.
|
naftee
|
|
response 102 of 108:
|
Feb 8 22:58 UTC 2004 |
mary:
valerie was not "freaking out" when she deleted those baby diary items. Or
at least, all the evidence points to the contrary of that being true
|