User Classes There shall be three classes of users, defined by levels of access to the Internet. Class One users shall have no Internet access. They can send and receive mail only to other local Grex accounts. All new user accounts will be created in Class One. Class Two users shall have full email and HTTP access to the Internet. Users can send and receive email from or to any address. They can also access the web from Grex by using text-based software such as Lynx. Class Three users shall have full net access, including telnet, ssh, and ftp. All members of Cyberspace, Inc will automatically be granted Class Three access upon payment of dues. Moving from Class One to Class Two. In order to be added to the Class Two group, a user must send an email requesting such change. A Verifier (as defined in the Verification Policy) will send an email back to that account asking "How did you hear about Grex?" When the user replies to the Verifier email with reasonable information, the Verifier shall add that user to the Class Two group. Moving from Class Two to Class Three. In order to be added to the Class Three group, a user must provide proof of identity. Acceptable proof is defined by the Verification Policy.9 responses total.
The "social verification" process suggested above for moving from Class 1 to Class 2 is one I have used successfully for a number of years on an international email list. Anonymity is preserved, and sufficient social pressure is exerted to keep spammers off the group. In our case, we have a safety net should this level of screening fail to stop spammers. Staff would have full ability to block accounts that create problems, as they currently do.
we need to take a look at this.
Does Class 2 have incoming telnet/ssh access to grex?
All classes have *incoming* access.
Then something needs slight rewording.
"members of Cyberspace Inc" in paragraph 4 should be "members of Grex". Otherwise it looks good. When we discussed this at the board meeting a few months ago, the only really contentious question was whether http should be in class 2 or class 3. In the end we settled on class 2, with the understanding that we might need to change the policy in the future if we find that a significant number of vandals are advancing to class 2 and then using http for mischief. I think the motion should make it simple for us to adjust that in the future if necessary.
I'd question why this needs to be a bylaw amendment. To my way of thinking, bylaws are for codifying organizational structures and procedures rather than listing specific policies. Why not make this simply a member proposal? Easier to pass, and also easier to modify or rescind as needs change. I think the content of the proposal is reasonable and will endorse bringing it to a vote if it's recast as a member proposal rather than a bylaw amendment.
Sure John, I'm up for member proposals. Let me see if there is a bylaw that defines access. If there is, I think we need to amend it. If not, a member proposal would be fine.
Nope, the bylaws don't talk about access.
You have several choices: