response 1 of 69:

Feb 12 06:31 UTC 1997

What happens if the proposal fails to pass?

response 3 of 69:

Feb 12 07:37 UTC 1997

I will be voting in favor of this. It is imperfect, but it can always be
changed. I would hope that this compromise will gain favor from the
"everything open" fringe, and from the "everything closed" fringe, which
would not be true of a proposal for either of the extremes. I consider it
an experiment and from the result a better policy will evolve. It was
apparent that that was not going to happen by just talking about it. Vote
for it - we can always change it.. 

response 5 of 69:

Feb 12 12:17 UTC 1997

Then Grex has no policy on unregistered reading.

I voted against this thing too.  I think this particular compromise is really,
really bad policy, for the general reasons John & others have given
repeatedly.

Having said that, I'm not sorry to see people seriously try to come up with
an acceptable compromise on this issue.  I can certainly live with it if it
passes.

response 7 of 69:

Feb 12 16:23 UTC 1997

What happens if this doesn't pass:

  Steve Weiss and I are the staff members who'd be responsible for turning
  on unresigistered reading if this does pass.  I think this is too
  controversial an issue to be decided by staff fiat (can't staff get a
  mercedes?).  So unless directed to do so by the board or by a member
  vote, I won't be turning it on.

  Speaking as a board member, I don't think the board should resolve this
  either.

  So, if this doesn't pass, then:
   (1) Grex has no policy on making conference readable to unregistered
       users.
   (2) Backtalk's unregistered reading features will not get turned on.

  It should be noted however, that it is technically possible for non-staff
  members to make portions of the conferences readable on the web without
  using any special magic powers.  Remmers has demonstrated that.  Lacking
  any policy, I'm not sure how staff and board would respond to this.  If
  people want a ban on unregistered reading, they should propose that, not
  settle for the current "no-policy" state.

How I voted:

  I think I'd personally favor having unregistered reading, but I don't think
  it is at all necessary to Grex, and I'm not convinced that it is a big
  enough benefit to make it worth offending those people uncomfortable with
  it.  So I don't really have any problem with simply leaving unregistered
  reading turned off.  I think the administrative complexity in this
  compromise is too much for too dubious a benefit.  So I voted against it.

response 9 of 69:

Feb 12 19:43 UTC 1997

There is no "big deal" here. It seems pretty straightforward. A bunch of
conferences will be open to unregistered web reading, and some won't. What's
a big deal about that? I don't even see that any problems will occur (though
there might be some very interesting discussions in conferences). But I
don't think there will be any serious arguments. This isn't even bureacratic
it is the *epitomy* of democracy in action - everyone getting what they
want, too. That doesn't often happen when decisions are made. C'mon folks,
lighten up, and give this a try. (We can all point at Valeries if there are
any problem.....  8^}).

response 11 of 69:

Feb 12 19:52 UTC 1997

The ante has been upped with the proposal to have a simple up/down vote
on opening all cfs to unregistered web reading. I hope that all those
that don't want some conferences to be freely open will understand the
the compromise, despite its warts, is better than cold-turkey. Jeff, the
"open reading for all" *was* proposed, but not offered as a motion - because
users were willing to listen to the concerns surrounding some particular
conferences. I started out saying just "open 'em all", but I now see less
problem with some open and some not. Why not try it? The world won't end,
and more people will be happy.

response 13 of 69:

Feb 12 20:07 UTC 1997

I voted against this for two reasons:  First, I support open reading, and
don't want a proposal that allows some open and some not open conferences.
Second, as a fair witness of two cf's, I don't want to have to deal with the
hassle of keeping track of what I can and cannot link.  I just thought of a
third:  As a fairwitness, a user of Grex, and a staff member, in that order,
I don't want to have to deal with people complaining that their
responses/items should be deleted because a cf became open to unregistyered
reading.

response 15 of 69:

Feb 13 07:39 UTC 1997

  I voted no. I support open reading of grex, registered or not.

 The Internet is about freedom, and should be as free as we can make it.

You want rules? join AOL, or Prodigy. 

response 17 of 69:

Feb 13 18:07 UTC 1997

Right.  What happens, is that the treasurer makes a list of valid voters as
of the close date, and then the votemaster feeds that list into the vote
program, which spits out the results.  So, you can vote now, and as long as
you are a voting member by the end of the vote, it counts.

response 19 of 69:

Feb 13 22:57 UTC 1997

actually, valerie, it's a little more ocmplicated that that.
i wouldn't be becoming a member if something weird hadn't hapened/
I haven't got the cash. 
UI am on AOL ;} i don't like it there. BUT they don't try an stick
my files on the web.

response 21 of 69:

Feb 14 23:06 UTC 1997

someone else paid.

response 23 of 69:

Feb 15 19:11 UTC 1997

#22...someone else on grex paid for your membership?  wow...I know people feel
strongly about this issue but I didnt know they felt strongly enough to buy
votes!  I wonder how many other votes on this issue havebeen bought.