|
Grex > Coop9 > #27: Motion: To allow anonymous reading via Backtalk | |
|
| Author |
Message |
popcorn
|
|
Motion: To allow anonymous reading via Backtalk
| 
Dec 18 07:05 UTC 1996 |
Grex's bylaws say that any member of Grex can change how the system works by
entering an item in co-op. This item is to propose such a change. Here is
the text of the section of the bylaws that explains the procedure we are
following in this item:
ARTICLE 5: VOTING PROCEDURES
a. Any member of Grex may make a motion by entering it as the
text of a discussion item in a computer conference on Grex
designated for this purpose. The item is then used for
discussion of the motion. All Grex users may participate in
the discussion. No action on the motion is taken for two
weeks. At the end of two weeks, the author may then submit a
final version for a vote by the membership. The vote is
conducted on-line over a period of ten days.
Here is the text of the motion. Please offer suggestions, wording
clarifications, etc.
Motion: To allow anonymous reading of all public conferences on Grex via
Backtalk.
|
| 624 responses total. |
popcorn
|
|
response 1 of 624:
|
Dec 18 07:08 UTC 1996 |
(I once was really strongly in favor of allowing anonymous reading via
Backtalk. I'm not feeling very fervent about either side of the issue
anymore. But I did say I'd propose a membership vote here so that
all the Grex members can decide the issue. So, this item is that membership
vote.)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 2 of 624:
|
Dec 18 07:13 UTC 1996 |
I suggest wording it as "Anonymous reading of all public conferences on Grex
via Backtalk is permitted."
|
popcorn
|
|
response 3 of 624:
|
Dec 18 07:45 UTC 1996 |
Sounds fine to me.
|
davel
|
|
response 4 of 624:
|
Dec 18 11:29 UTC 1996 |
Why limit it to Backtalk? I know, that's the only means at present, but just
wait ...
|
remmers
|
|
response 5 of 624:
|
Dec 18 12:26 UTC 1996 |
More generic wording: "Anonymous reading of all public conferences on Grex via
the World Wide Web is permitted." That would cover Backtalk and any web-reader
software that would come along in the future.
I favor this proposal. It's an extension to the web of the anonymous reading
(since we don't verify users) that we already allow via telnet and dialup.
|
davel
|
|
response 6 of 624:
|
Dec 18 14:21 UTC 1996 |
I favor it, too. Anyone who can dial in or telnet in can read any conference,
anonymously even beyond the question of verification: they can join a
conference but choose "observe" instead of "join" at the
join-or-pass(-or-whatever) prompt, and there is no participation file or
anything else to give anyone a clue that they've ever read the conference -
not even for an instant. Given that *and* completely open, unverified
accounts, I don't see that limiting reading through the web buys anyone
anything at all - unless the goal is just to reduce access to Grex through
the web. It would be pretty hard to have more anonymity than we already have.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 7 of 624:
|
Dec 18 15:18 UTC 1996 |
Good point John. Let's consider the wording in #5 to be the latest version.
|
remmers
|
|
response 8 of 624:
|
Dec 18 15:54 UTC 1996 |
(Sorry about the formatting of #5. I was responding via
Backtalk, and my browser apparently didn't send along
end-of-line records corresponding to places where it did word
wrap.)
|
kerouac
|
|
response 9 of 624:
|
Dec 18 17:19 UTC 1996 |
When this was discussed at the board meeting, wasnt it coupled with
Selena's proposal that fw's be determined to have the right to decide
whether their confs are offered through backtalk or any new interface
other than the one it was created in.? I believe the argument was that
if an fw doesnt like or use or have the ability to use backtalk or
any new interface, that it should be his/her prerogative of whether their
conf is offered by that method.
|
scott
|
|
response 10 of 624:
|
Dec 18 17:26 UTC 1996 |
It was thrown back to be argued about on-line more. The Board didn't make
any action on this subject.
|
remmers
|
|
response 11 of 624:
|
Dec 18 17:29 UTC 1996 |
All fairwitness functions are available through either
interface. So just because a conference is available via
backtalk, it doesn't mean that the fw has to access it that way
to perform fw duties. If that was the rationale for opposing
this, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
But in any case, that's irrelevant to the current proposal,
which has to do with the issue of "anonymous" reading.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 12 of 624:
|
Dec 18 17:34 UTC 1996 |
what Im saying is that both proposals were tabled pending
Valeries's request to have a member vote. If only one of them
is going tobe voted on, the other shouldbe put back on the agenda for
the nextboard meeting.
|
robh
|
|
response 13 of 624:
|
Dec 18 17:39 UTC 1996 |
I thought selena's concern was with anonymous access of her
conference, not just access via Backtalk.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 14 of 624:
|
Dec 18 17:42 UTC 1996 |
I believe her concern was with both.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 15 of 624:
|
Dec 18 18:25 UTC 1996 |
This issue should be settled before defining fw authority. If it fails,
presumably conferences will not be accessible anonymously, and the fw
question is moot.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 16 of 624:
|
Dec 18 18:35 UTC 1996 |
I understood the issue to be that if someone requested a conference be
created in the picospan environment, should it be assumed that this is
the environment the fw wishes to present his/her conf in? Should Janc
get individual fw's permission before putting links to their confs on
Backtalk. Anonymous reads were only part of the issue.
|
steve
|
|
response 17 of 624:
|
Dec 18 18:39 UTC 1996 |
John has an excellent wording for this. I too support this, because
we already have anonymous reading of conferences: it's called Grex.
The physical method of how the confernce is read is immaterial;
there are several ways to do it; BackTalk being the first, but others
exist, like reading the confernce files from a shell prompt. If you
type
cat /bbs/agora19/_1
you'll see the contents of the first Agora item (maybe we're at agor20
now?), which is just as anonymous as via BackTalk. Or maybe even a
little more, since going through the web there is logging going on,
and using the "cat method of snooping" we'd only have our record of
the telnet coming in.
So: we *already* support anonymous reading of conferences. It
seems to me that the people who don't like this are not understanding
the lower-level technical issues here.
Still, lets put it up to a vote.
|
steve
|
|
response 18 of 624:
|
Dec 18 18:40 UTC 1996 |
Janc shouldn't have to get permission for BackTalk to carry a
conference any more than anyone who brought over some other method
of reading conferences would (Granted, writing to those files would
require staff intervention).
|
popcorn
|
|
response 19 of 624:
|
Dec 19 21:00 UTC 1996 |
Re 17: STeve, the difference is that people who log on to Grex and use the
"cat" command to look at agora items already have Grex accounts. The folks
who didn't like anonymous reading of items objected to the idea of people who
don't have Grex accounts reading the conferences.
|
brighn
|
|
response 20 of 624:
|
Dec 19 22:54 UTC 1996 |
Scott, that's H-E-L-M-K-E, correct?
I want my lawyers to spell it correctly.
Seriously, all previous arguments repeated, this is a dangerous idea.
|
scott
|
|
response 21 of 624:
|
Dec 20 12:00 UTC 1996 |
Brighn, I'm confused about your response.
Could you please state what you mean directly?
|
dang
|
|
response 22 of 624:
|
Dec 20 17:46 UTC 1996 |
(I was at that board meeting, and as far as I remember, the only thing
proposed and discussed was anonymous reading, not backtalk access. If you
feel that strongly about backtalk access, become a member and propose a vote.)
I support this completely.
|
janc
|
|
response 23 of 624:
|
Dec 20 19:08 UTC 1996 |
Personally, I don't think it matters one way or the other. Creating an
account through the web takes a few minutes. If we require that people do
that before reading the conferences, it is no great burden on the users.
Plus, if they are reading the conferences, and see something that suddenly
inspires them to want to post, then they can do so if they have accounts.
This goes back to one of Marcus's old principles: If you are going to put
people into conferences, you should put them all the way into real
conferences. It makes it much easier for people to change from lurkers to
participants.
So even if we allowed anonymous reading, I'd probably want to make the web
pages strongly encourage getting an account.
|
robh
|
|
response 24 of 624:
|
Dec 20 19:11 UTC 1996 |
I'd actually have to vote against this amendment, for the reason
janc cited above: if registering as a Grex user is so trivial, why not
make people do it? What's the big deal?
|