|
Grex > Coop9 > #55: Motion: To allow unregistered reading of all conferences | |
|
| Author |
Message |
mary
|
|
Motion: To allow unregistered reading of all conferences
| 
Feb 12 14:10 UTC 1997 |
As a member I'd like to put the following motion up for a
membership vote. A two week discussion period will begin
followed by a vote.
*************************************************
Motion: To allow unregistered users to read all Grex
conferences except the Staff conference.
*************************************************
That's it.
|
| 367 responses total. |
robh
|
|
response 1 of 367:
|
Feb 12 15:46 UTC 1997 |
Well, that makes it a lot easier for me to decide how to vote. >8)
|
scott
|
|
response 2 of 367:
|
Feb 12 16:45 UTC 1997 |
I'll vote for that.
|
kaplan
|
|
response 3 of 367:
|
Feb 12 19:51 UTC 1997 |
Thanks for propsing this, Mary. Count on my support.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 4 of 367:
|
Feb 12 19:53 UTC 1997 |
Which is better in the spirit of consensus on Grex - the compromise, or
everything open?
|
ryan1
|
|
response 5 of 367:
|
Feb 12 21:09 UTC 1997 |
If this is ever put up to a vote, I will vote against it, just like any
other proposal that alows unregistered reading of the bulletin board.
|
nsiddall
|
|
response 6 of 367:
|
Feb 12 22:05 UTC 1997 |
Well, I'll vote against this one, too. Evidently some people really don't
want unregistered reading. It's not important enough to me to pay much
attention to the whole argument. I'd prefer that someone just decide to do
it, or not do it, and change their minds if it isn't a good idea, or if
people have reasonable objections. It just doesn't merit a huge debate and
an Official Policy and a Bylaw. This is like a constitutional amendment to
prohibit flag-burning. Let's go argue about the academy awards, instead.
|
scg
|
|
response 7 of 367:
|
Feb 12 23:24 UTC 1997 |
I'll vote for this. I was thinking of proposing this myself, but hadn't
gotten around to it yet.
|
richard
|
|
response 8 of 367:
|
Feb 13 00:04 UTC 1997 |
This is consistent and in the spirit of grex. If grex does not have fully
open conferences, it is not grex. If we are to have unregistered users, they
should have access to all the confs (read access that is) I hope that robh
does not resign and that brighn, selena, jenna .etc do not leave. They are
valued contributors..but this is about the integrity of "grex" Or at least
I think it is, I'll concede I may be too idealistic.
|
jenna
|
|
response 9 of 367:
|
Feb 13 00:51 UTC 1997 |
I'll have to vote no. Maybe the compromie being voted on isn't
right, I have to admit even i think parts of it are crazy
but I think something more comprehensive than this is important
|
mta
|
|
response 10 of 367:
|
Feb 13 05:31 UTC 1997 |
This is the direction I'm actually in favour of, though I'll be voting "yes"
on both.
|
davel
|
|
response 11 of 367:
|
Feb 13 11:51 UTC 1997 |
Richard, come off it - this is Grex even if the other proposal passes & this
one fails. I think this one is what we should do, but unregistered web
reading is really kind of a side issue no matter what.
|
valerie
|
|
response 12 of 367:
|
Feb 13 16:08 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
robh
|
|
response 13 of 367:
|
Feb 13 21:13 UTC 1997 |
Valerie (and everyone else), PLEASE don't let my leaving affect
your vote. Grex's future is more important than my future on Grex.
If you really think that anonymous reading is the way to go, then vote
that way.
Re #8 - Your hope is futile, I'm afraid. I've sworn an oath on this,
and I don't break oaths.
|
richard
|
|
response 14 of 367:
|
Feb 13 22:13 UTC 1997 |
What if both pass? Does the one that passes with the most votes become policy
or does the first one passed have precedence or would the follwup supercede
it?
I suppose if both pass, one proposal could be policy on backtalk "vanilla"
and the other on "Pistachio". That would be a compromise of a sort.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 15 of 367:
|
Feb 13 22:30 UTC 1997 |
The last one that passes becomes the policy. It replaces the "previous"
policy.
|
richard
|
|
response 16 of 367:
|
Feb 13 22:33 UTC 1997 |
aha! but rcurl, since both votes are pending, neither one can be made
official policy until both votes have been completed. Therefore the first
vote could not be considered "previous policy"
|
jenna
|
|
response 17 of 367:
|
Feb 13 22:59 UTC 1997 |
this is crazy! myabe you should have waited to propose
this one til the other one passed! talk about madness
and bureacracy!
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 18 of 367:
|
Feb 14 01:48 UTC 1997 |
I'm voting no on this one too.
The one I'll vote yes on allows the few conferences that really care, to limit
reading. All other conferences, and all new conferences would be open to
unregistered reading.
Grexers get to vote early and vote often. What fun!
|
rcurl
|
|
response 19 of 367:
|
Feb 14 06:32 UTC 1997 |
No vote on this item is pending. We are in a two week discussion period.
The vote will commence on 26 February, well after the *current* vote is
complete.
|
richard
|
|
response 20 of 367:
|
Feb 14 16:38 UTC 1997 |
actually, since this issue has already been discussed ad nauseum, I think the
usual two weekwaiting period should be waived and this vote should commence
immeidately following the conclusion of the current one. Lets get it over
with.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 21 of 367:
|
Feb 14 19:18 UTC 1997 |
Richard? you want to ignore the rules? And procedures? Oh my!
By the way, I will propose the all-open,
except-for-the-grandfathered-current-confs motion even (especially) if this
one passes.
|
richard
|
|
response 22 of 367:
|
Feb 14 20:25 UTC 1997 |
besides, it is not policy I dont think until jan/steve enact it, and it would
be pointless to go to the trouble of doing so until all the votes on this
matter have taken place.
I suppose after cmcgee's proposal is votred on, we can also have a vot4e on
valerie's second proposal or third proposal
Sooner or later we'll find out which version it is that most people want.
I actually think that if the current version os voted down that cnmcgee's
followup would be pointless because it isnt that different in the first place.
It would be a ar3ejection of selectively open confs, however the wording is.
|
jenna
|
|
response 23 of 367:
|
Feb 14 23:07 UTC 1997 |
I thik this is all crazy
|
ryan1
|
|
response 24 of 367:
|
Feb 15 00:14 UTC 1997 |
Very crazy. Here are the choices in this situation:
We open up all the confs for a hypathetical group of people who MIGHT
come to grex, and get all the current users against this get ticked.
Or we leave them closed to unregistered users and keep everybody happy.
|