81 new of 150 responses total.
I support bringing this to a vote.
I reiterate my endorsement and suggest others endorse as well.
As a user interested in the wellbeing of Grexserver and Cyberspace Communications, I support this, but as a non-member, I cannot formally endorse this. I would like to see this happen, and hope it will curb the abuse.
"Promotion from the User class to Community Users class would be by responding to a email sent by a Grex Helper which asked the user to identify where or how they found out about Grex." What kind of response? Anything? Even f... you? It doesn't say that the User has to say "where or how they found out about Grex" - only that they respond (nor that they respond truthfully). (I'm also not sure what utility this has - but I have not read the whole item.)
We have deliberately left this up to the discretion of the Grex Helper.
off topic but would it help if staf mails the staff on other similar systems like sdf etc and ask how they are tackling the spam problem?
erm ... If the user does not have the ability to send even local email, how is he or she going to respond to the email asking how he or she found out about Grex? (As specified as the method for validation.)
Staff has a plan. I'm not sure what it involves, but that was a critical component in the way I wrote this. It is clear that vandals have made use of local email access, so there really is no way to remain a good net citizen and allow that. If the staff plan doesn't work, we will then have to have an off-site email address in order for the validation to occur.
Can I make what I hope is a fairly common-sense suggestion -- which is that you come up with whatever procedures, implement them in a kind of practice or test mode first (e.g. creation through a "newnewuser" account creation process..), have some people try to use them, make sure the limitations work, make sure the "promotion" procedures work, etc.. In other words, work all this out, including the procedures, using volunteers first, and only THEN change newuser to make this the new standard (assuming that this scheme is even approved in the first place.)
Sure, but we need to have the policy in place before we can do anything.
And how and when do we get to sign up those of us that want to be helpers [and get the basic 'training']? Is this going to be discussed at one of the upcoming board meetings?
Yes, I think we can certainly add an agenda item for the next board meeting to formalize the process a bit more.
McNally, unless staff can come up with a workable solution, we will have exactly what is posted in this item: A Grex where you cannot get social validation without an offsite email address. I'm really really hoping staff can make that work. But I'm not willing to leave us in suspended animation any longer waiting for that to happen. People are currently exploiting our openness to vandalize individuals, Grex, and other systems. We need to stop that.
I support bringing this to a vote
Folks, there's email, and there's Email. We can certainly create some way to send messages to someone that *look* like email, and to get a response back. Perhaps, ``cut and paste this into the grex terminal'' sorts of things that run some kind of script.
This item was originally posted on August 6, 2007. The final text was posted on September 4, 2007. By the end of September 6, 2007, 6 members had endorsed bringing the proposal to a vote. As of today, we have 56 members, so 6 members constitutes more than 10% of the membership. I've been asked to run the election. Unfortunately, I don't have enough time right now to set up the election. I will make time to set it up tomorrow, to run for 10 days. The voting booth will open at or about 00:01, Tuesday, September 11, 2007.
Thanks Joe!
If I did everything correctly, the voting should start at midnight. Both terminal and web access should work. If not, someone who knows how should give me a call, when the/a problem is discovered.
waht about CURRENT well-knowns? or is this *solely* new loginids?
The voting booth is available if you use www.cyberspace.org For some reason www.grex.org shows me the older webpage. Perhaps it's a browser cache problem. Telnetting in to vote does not work. I've informed Gelinas of the problem, and he will take care of it in the morning.
TS, no one who currently has email access will lose it because of this proposal. Logins that currently do not have email access will automatically be in the User group, and will need to go through the process to be promoted to the Community User group.
Yep, browser cache issue. Refreshing the page gave me access to the voting booth.
(Could I suggest making the voting booth link on the main page "secure" (i.e. https) to that login and password won't be sent in the clear.)
Also, the web voting form should contain the full wording of the proposal.
John, has the complete voteadmin procedure been documented? Apparently what Joe has access to isn't easily understandable.
Vote program installation and configuration is documented on the "Grexdoc" CVS server; see e.g. ~remmers/grexdoc/vote/doc. I guess conventions of a non-technical nature like "what to put on the voting form" aren't spelled out. What I always did was to put the full wording of the proposal and a link to the Coop discussion item. Those can easily be added by editing the relevant files that reside in the /var/spool/vote directory.
I know this doesn't have to do with the voting but I'm not sure which item to ask in--and this is the closest one I see about members... I read somewhere here [on one of the links or something?] that there is a grex ' handbook'. Is that still around somewhere, and if so, how can I get ahold of one? Thanks.
The voting programs were installed as per the grexdoc documentation (by me). I think the questions are about the softer side of running a poll.
FYI, I don't think the vote is properly configured (or maybe I'm just
confused):
: grex 1169; vote
*** Welcome to the Grex Voting Booth, cross! ***
Improper format in candlist
: grex 1170;
cross, that is the problem cmcgee mentioned in *89 above. It's fixed now. I've also secured the web voting booth and added the full text of the proposal, as suggested by remmers. I'll add a link to the discussion when I figure out "peek."
so would it be a one time payment of a dollar? how would this affect the users that create tons of accounts only to harass and abuse other grexers and such?
I added the link, but not by using 'peek.'
resp:100 I believe that since they would have to use something like Paypal, it would tie a real-world identity (i.e. one that can have its internet access revoked by its IAP or one that can have criminal charges leveled against it). Additionally, if a person made and activated a whole bunch of accounts with the same Paypal ID, it would raise red flags, and remedial action could be taken when the accounts are activated, rather than waiting until they start being used for abusive purposes.
Chad, there is no requirement that anyone pay anything. The paypal $1.00 option is only if you do not choose to submit the other photo ID options. Paypal accounts are tied to real people, that can be traced. If any account was used to violate our Terms of Service, all accounts tied to that person would be blocked and no new ones issued. Spamming conferences, individuals, and other denial of service attacks are sufficient to get your accounts blocked. Criminal activity would be prosecuted. All accounts tied to that person would be blocked and no new ones issued. The point of validation is to give us access to the identity of the person creating the accounts. The initial validation will also be sufficient to recognize a personality behind the facade, and will evolve to meet our needs to achieve that recognition. If we can't do that reliably, I will suggest we remove the intermediate class and only allow verified accounts. If we continue to experience our current levels of user harassment and destruction of the community, it will be our best option.
The voting program is somewhat confusing. Choose between candidates no (y/n) and yes (y/n). For instance, vote n for no and y for yes. I tried to vote 'y' twice and was scolded.
That sounds right. You are only able to cast a vote for passage (yes) or defeat (no). You can't vote yes on both.
Yes, the terminal-based version of the vote program is a bit confusing, and I'm afraid it's my fault. There are actually two separate "vote" programs, one for board elections and one for member proposals. I thought I had documented how to install and configure both, but upon looking at grexdoc, I see that I only included instructions for the board election program, so that's what's running. It's usable for voting on proposals too, but the interface is more tuned for voting on candidates in an election. Hence if you want to vote for the proposal, you have to vote "y" for Yes and "n" for No, which works but is definitely weird. I suggest we live with the strange interface for this election, and I'll update the docs so that future proposal votes get a more suitable interface. Apologies.
I'm going to support this proposal, but, upon closer inspection, I do have a concern. The wording is overly specific for a membership vote. If the board or staff should want to change what specific question is asked during the social validation, they are pretty locked in by this vote. Likewise for when accounts get reaped or even what is considered a minimum PayPal payment. Too much detail is hard coded to allow for tweaking. The board could, of course, vote to change any of the stated details, But they'd be overriding a membership vote. We've been pretty darn careful to avoid setting up that situation up until now. I'm sorry to mention this so late in the process. My fault for not reading response #66 as the final wording.
*sigh* I understand. But let's get this passed, and tweak it later. My suspicion is that it will need to be revised after we have a bit more experience with the "Community User" class and process anyway.
Regarding #107; Valid concerns. I agree with Colleen; let's get it passed, and then amended with another membership vote. I think that's probably the cleanest solution.
No, it's not clean. It's more quick and dirty. ;-)
This motion cannot be voted on because there are only five members who support
bringing it to vote. My guess is gelinas counted nharmon's response 4 ("I
support this") as an endorsement of bringing the motion to vote, but section
5.c. of the bylaws makes it very clear that for an endorsement to be
considered, it must consist of a statement to the effect that the motion
should be voted on.
Regarding #110; You're right, but it's cleaner than the board modifying a member proposal after the fact.... Regarding #111; Check out the legal definition of, ``reasonable interpretation.'' Nate, would you care to clarify your statements?
I also add that I should not be counted as endorsing bringing this motion to vote. While I support the motion and have made statements to that affect, I do not believe there is enough support among the membership to make this a worthwhile vote.
I also contest cmcgee's statements being construed as an endorsement to bring this to vote. While she she did state that the motion was ready to be voted on, that does not imply she AGREED the motion should be voted on.
Well to be clear, *I* do support bringing this motion to vote. Since it is a board initiative, I believe that, as an individual, I can support this proposal.
You didn't make an endorsement before the deadline.
you can certainly interpret my asking to bring it to a vote as an endorsement to bring it to a vote.
My preferred alternative is to finish this vote. Another option would be for the board to pass this as policy, and implement it immediately. Then we can patiently wait until such time as the membership can get its act together, and vote it up or down. While that's not a better alternative, it is one I'm willing to entertain.
No, you can't.
The bylaws are very clear:
Endorsement shall consist of a statement by the
member in the discussion item agreeing that the motion should
be voted on.
In response #45, you stated "This is ready to be voted on." This is simply
a statement that in your opinion the appropriate conditions had been met for
the motion to be voted on, but it cannot be construed as an endorsement.
I say that that's what I meant. Are you telling me I don't know what I was meant?
It's possible that's what you meant, but it doesn't meet the very clear criteria for an endorsement required by the by-laws.
David, knock it off.
Knock what off? Making sure Cyberspace, Inc. follows its own by-laws? People were told repeatedly in this very item to make sure they followed the requirements for endorsements and not many of them did. That should tell you something. I'd appreciate it if gelinas could post a list of the people he considered to be endorsing this proposal as well as the statements they made that which he considered to be their endorsements. According to a post he made, there were six such people -- only one more than the minimum required to bring a motion to vote.
You're being pedantic in arguing semantics; why?
This response has been erased.
please do.
I think the way people are trying to railroad this through, especially cmcgee's threat to do it even with the anaemic support we're receiving from the members, is a disturbing departure from the way Grex has functioned since its inception. That's the short of it, and I'll post the long of it, including better solutions to the problems Grex is facing, in another item when I have a bit more time.
When I said "I support this", I meant I supported this measure to be voted upon by the membership. I'm sorry I was not clearer.
Let's be clear here. Mark Conger first raised this issue in this conference on March 31, 2007, for inclusion in the April 1 board agenda. A through explanation of the board discussion was posted on April 2nd. We have also had more than a month of discussion since I posted the initial draft on August 6th. This seems to be a fairly traditional pacing for discussions and decisions on Grex. If anything, it may be overly slow. You, scholar, have visited this conference frequently since then. You have had numerous chances to contribute to the final shaping of this proposal. Now you get to vote on it. It may pass, it may fail. If it passes, the Board will implement it to the best of its ability. If it fails, the Board will try to solve the problems some other way. Stopping the vote will not stop the problems, nor the Board's duty to try to solve them.
Hey, guess what, the membership wants the Board to follow the by-laws.
I can see Grex is continuing with its illegal vote...
And why are you getting so excited about what you perceive to be an "illegal vote"? Are you not the one who tried in vain to convince me to forge a message in someone else's name to support the proposal, and got all upset because I refused to do it? And are you not the one who then suggested that if I was unwilling to do that, that I should go ahead and set up the vote anyway (under the assumption that because it was suggested by cmcgee that I take that responsibility, that the responsibility was mine)? And again, are you not the one who got all upset because I refused to do so? And now you're pretending to be the ethical one who insists on doing everything by the book? Why is that?
I support bringing this proposal to a vote. Sorry, I hadn't been paying attention and forgot about that requirement.
(( MOTD announcement about the election should be updated to include
the END of the voting period, which is now of more concern to
voters than the BEGINNING of the voting period. I'd do it myself
but I don't know when the end is... ))
krj, try refreshing your browser cache. gelinas fixed that on Saturday.
I see. The MOTD is not changed, but the Backtalk page is.
re. 133: it's too late for your support to be valid. re. 132: it's not too late for you to start making some sense here.
I finally got onto the machine today. I've now updated the motd. I re-counted the endorsements; I found, in addition to nharmon, support for voting from remmers, mary, cross, scholar, gelinas and slynne, all seven of whom are members.
At no point did I endorse taking this motion to vote.
Assuming the online member list is up-to-date, there are 56 members, so 6 is a sufficient number of endorsements.
If you want/need another, I endorse the vote...
"I wholeheartedly support this proposal and will definitely be voting for it" (scholar, response 41 above). "I reiterate my endorsement and suggest others endorse as well" (scholar, response 71 above).
Right. I was endorsing the proposal, NOT endorsing taking it to vote. Same with Nate (He said something like 'I support this').
It should also be noted that my interpretation is the one set out as correct by the by-laws, and that hcmsgee didn't endorse taking the proposal to vote either.
The Treasurer has certified the list of voters, and I have counted the votes. Twenty-four people, fifteen members and nine non-members, voted. The members voted 14 to 1 in favor of the proposal, so the proposal passed. The non-members voted 6 to 3 in favor of the proposal.
Party-land has a couple of returning long-time users who "we" would like to get tel and mail privileges added for. Their old accounts were reaped, so they appear as newbies under the new rules. How're the implementation details on this coming along?
As I understand it: cross finished the "add first class (new) users to the second class group" script before he left; unicorn and gelinas are each looking at how to put second class people back into first class" script. Board created the "porters" group at last board meeting; gelinas populated that group with the board members. Next board meeting we need to add any other members to the porters group, and decide how to handle inter-group communication for the porters. Then we can start adding first-class users to the second-class group. Primarily we're waiting on the completion of the script. Right now, you can send mail to help@grex.org asking staff to add specific userIDs to the 2nd group. As always, staff will be the ones to decide whether to block a user ID. Porters will only be able to move IDs between the two groups.
(I see that the group "porters" exists and has been populated as cmcgee described, but I didn't do it.)
uhhh, ok, it was unicorn then.
(Credit where it is due, Ma'am. ;)
You have several choices: