Grex Coop10 Conference

Item 6: Link it to Co-op!

Entered by dang on Tue Jul 1 23:02:09 1997:

Wnat to see an item from another cf linked to coop?  Enter the request here,
or mail one of the fairwitnesses.  Most immediately, what items do you want
linked from the previous co-op?
15 responses total.

#1 of 15 by mary on Wed Jul 16 20:09:03 1997:

This doesn't quite belong in this item but I'm wondering why the
Co-op announcement item is a moderated item.  Folks are asked
to submit any announcements to the fairwitnesses instead
of just entering the announcements.  Why?  Is this really
necessary?


#2 of 15 by richard on Wed Jul 16 22:05:07 1997:

not necessary atall...in fact COOP doesnt reallyneed a fair
witness and *probably* dfoesnt need re-starts either.


#3 of 15 by remmers on Wed Jul 16 22:39:31 1997:

I don't like the moderated announcements item.


#4 of 15 by scg on Thu Jul 17 03:03:44 1997:

It does kind of make sense to me.  If the idea is to have a place where
important things can be anounced and won't get burried in the clutter,
moderating the item is about the only way it can be done.  If people want to
discuss something said there, a new item can be started for it.  At the same
time, though, it could lead to problems of having only one point of view in
the anouncements item, and in that sense it isn't good.

One of the Coop FWs is a reasonable person.  I hope that will make such a
setup managable.


#5 of 15 by valerie on Thu Jul 17 07:04:58 1997:

This response has been erased.



#6 of 15 by remmers on Thu Jul 17 11:43:36 1997:

Heh. Are y'all aware that Item 1 of the previous Coop was also
a moderated announcements item? Quite possibly not. Guess how
much it was used.

Since Picospan more or less guarantees that you're only shown
each response once, putting my announcement in a frozen item,
with no discussion allowed, will mean that my announcement will
get minimal exposure. People will see it once and probably
forget that it was ever there. Allowing discussion at least has
the effect of reminding people that the announcement exists.

So I won't use Item 1 for my own announcements, if any. I'll put
'em where they can be responded to and take my chances with the
discussion, as I think that approach will enhance their effective-
ness.

But this is the link request item and I'm drifting, so I'll shut
up now.


#7 of 15 by dang on Thu Jul 17 18:38:28 1997:

Actually, it's only in the privious (and this) co-op because it was in the
one before that, and so I put it in these too.  It makes no difference to me,
as I've never used it.  I can go unfreeze it if people want.  I really see
no use for it at all.


#8 of 15 by mary on Thu Jul 17 18:47:39 1997:

I think an announcement item could be a good place to ask
short questions that folks might not feel warrant a full,
new item.  I just don't think having a moderated interface
is helpful.  I don't worry much about items getting messy.
I tend to think the priority should be on making it easy
and comfortable for folks to join in.  Having  your question
screened before entry doesn't make it easy or comfortable.

Thanks for opening the item, dang.


#9 of 15 by valerie on Fri Jul 18 15:03:01 1997:

This response has been erased.



#10 of 15 by remmers on Fri Jul 18 16:32:27 1997:

I'd much prefer it unfrozen.


#11 of 15 by dang on Fri Jul 18 19:47:07 1997:

Item 1 is now unfrozen.  In future co-ops, I think I'll still have a frozen
item 1, for the reason Valerie stated, but have the announcements item
unfrozen.


#12 of 15 by remmers on Sat Jul 19 12:21:21 1997:

Thanks, Daniel.


#13 of 15 by janc on Sun Jul 20 13:41:34 1997:

That's good.  I guess we need to think about what we need to do about
implementing this change.  Need to update the bylaws on line, which I guess
is the job of Grex Archivist, Mary Remmers.  I suppose we right now have
one institutional member, convocat.  If this is retroactive (I gather Convocat
doesn't mind) then convocat loses its vote, and should be taken out of the
voters group in the /etc/group file.

We should probably update our literature to indicate that (1) institutional
memberships are welcome, but (2) they don't get a vote.

There'd been talk about having lists of institutional and individual donors
on the web page.  Probably only people who want to be listed should be.
We should think about that.


#14 of 15 by mary on Sun Jul 20 14:47:54 1997:

I think Jan probaly meant to enter this response in item #7
so I'll follow-up there.


#15 of 15 by janc on Mon Jul 21 14:26:39 1997:

Oops, sorry.


There are no more items selected.

You have several choices: