Another Proposal for a Conference Access Policy (Short name: the Masking Policy)

Mar 26 16:15 UTC 1997

I move that Grex adopt a conference access policy as follows:

All conferences are open to all users who have a Grex login id, with the
exception of the "Staff" conference.

People who do not have Grex login ids are considered unregistered readers. 
Unregistered readers may not post or otherwise participate in any
conference. 

This proposal will be implemented as soon as the software is available
that allows users with a Grex login id to mask their responses from
unregistered readers.  

response 2 of 25:

Mar 26 16:30 UTC 1997

reading *is* participating...this wordingsounds like the current grex 
policy.  I dont see anything in it that says unregistered reading is allowed.

Try:

"Grex's conferences are open for anyone and everyone to read at their
pleasure, regardless of whether they are members or registered users of
grex.  However, only members and registered users of Grex may have posting
privledges or qualify for fair witnessing duties.

Registered users of grex are allowed to censor their own material  before
it is made available for read-access to unregistered users.  

The Staff conference is exempted from this proposal"

response 4 of 25:

Mar 26 16:49 UTC 1997

Looks really good.  I share Richard's concern about the word "participate",
although my version would say

"Unregistered readers may read but not post to any conference that is open
to registered users."

response 6 of 25:

Mar 26 17:18 UTC 1997

Re #0: the last paragraph makes the provision for masking not part of the
proposal. What's left is the current policy. If you want a new policy
constructed around the masking provision, it should be included in the
policy.  The proposal does not required that the masking software ever be
available. 

Re #1: Amendment A does nothing, as the board has the power to adopt - or
negate - any policy, no matter whether it originated with the board or a
member. No ordinary act can tie the hands of the board - that would
require a bylaw change. 

"Masking" needs to be defined.

Re #2: exactly who is included in "anyone" that is excluded from
"everyone", and vica versa? Is it required to have "pleasure" in reading
the conferences, and how will this be enforced? Why do you *now* want to
restrict reading to only "members or registered users" (which is what the
wording does)?  Registered users are permitted now to censor their
material. I think this needs a lot of work. 

Each "who" in #0 should be a "that" (see Fowler for corroboration).

response 8 of 25:

Mar 26 19:31 UTC 1997

i think i know what its supposed to mean, but it didn't make a word
of sense to me as currently worded. Not a word. It sounded like
it entirely undid Mary's motion... totally unallowing... oh wait
heh... i've been at this computer screen too long.
Now it makes sense.
Should ZI con c out of this response? Nyah. ;}

response 10 of 25:

Mar 26 21:24 UTC 1997

I'm also reading this as completely undoing Mary's proposal.  What am I
misunderstanding?

response 12 of 25:

Mar 26 23:11 UTC 1997

This should be exactly what Mary's proposal is, with the following amendments.
1) Staff conference is specifically excluded from unregistered reading. The
current policy requires Staff conference to be open to unregistered reading.
2) The current policy has not been implemented.  This gives a criterion for
when the policy would be implemented.  
3) Amendment A probably isn't necessary, but it does clarify that a change
toward *more* privacy would not be considered major, and would not need total
membership review.
4) Amendment B was trying to provide a way for a FW of, for instance, the
Sexuality Conference, to mask the responses of someone who was no longer on
Grex, but who had posted extremely personal information.  It is merely an
attempt to retrofit the privacy offered current users to earlier users.  

Again, let me state that I am happy with the current policy, which has not
yet been implemented.  It states that all conferences are open to anyone for
reading, whether or not they have a login id on Grex.  

This proposal is an attempt to pin down a policy that uses the software
solution of masking your response, rather than the user/fw solution of "open"
or "closed" conferences as a way to compromise with those users who worry
about the privacy of their responses.  

response 14 of 25:

Mar 27 01:37 UTC 1997

Whoops, Mary's proposal does exclude the Staff conference.  
The reasons this was entered as a proposal are:
1) Mary asked for a resolution to the problem of implementing the current
policy.  Item 55, Response 323

#323 of 323: by Mary Remmers (mary) on Sat, Mar 22, 1997 (19:02):
 I think there needs to be a plan on where we are going with this issue.
 I'd suggest that the policy which was voted on (this item) be put into
 effect as soon as either Jan or Steve can make the necessary changes to
 Backtalk.

 Jan, what was the estimate you gave today on how soon you could have this
 done?

 Meanwhile, I'd suggest the Board do one of two things.  The Board could
 decide to make Jan's unreadable-to-the-unregistered utility available as
 as soon as the program is written.  Or, if there is a strong feeling this
 utility needs to be voted on by the membership, then someone who feels
 that way needs to propose such a vote.

 This issue needs to be resolved.

2) On tonight's board agenda, Valerie said, " Since unregistered reading
is such a hot issue that I think it needs to be decided by the users, not
by the board."

If everyone agreed that the current policy not be implemented until the
technical (software) solution is available, I would not have proposed
this.  But not everyone agreed.  Some people want to implement it right
away, some want to wait until the software fix is available.  
All my proposal does is explicitly say that the policy will be implemented
as soon as the software is available.  It could, if I amend it, include
permission for the FW of a conference to put certain login ids on the
"unreadable" list.  My proposal is only being put up to expedite a member
vote on this issue.  

response 16 of 25:

Mar 27 03:04 UTC 1997

my wording and scott's wording say the same thing..I dont understand

response 18 of 25:

Mar 29 05:44 UTC 1997

The wording was tricky... that's whyit was hard to understand.
*I* do think we should wait til the software fix is availaible.
I think if we have another vote, it should be on whether Mary's
policy allows for that (or at least discuss it )  or whether the
standing policy needs to be amended to incvlude that individuals
can censor their own #0's and responses in the prescence of software
alllowing for this. I'd really rather see an amendment and a sort o
injunction upon implementing the current *what the HELL do you call
a motion that's passed?* until the software is in place.
What do people think?

response 20 of 25:

Mar 30 05:49 UTC 1997

yes... the board could elect not to turn it on for a while
the members cold vote an amendment to it not to turn it on
until software is availiable, or ntil it has been decided 
wehter software will be made availiable (and if so, when it
will be ready)... the real question is, what do you do
while waiting for the amendment to be discussed and voted on?

response 22 of 25:

Mar 30 23:39 UTC 1997

that was a serious question -- how would you decide what tio
do about implementing it if a motion to place an injunction
against it until the twit filter was availiable was in the
process of being discussed or voted upon? (this is just a
weird tangental governmental type of question, I want an 
answer,. but this stuff isn't actually happening)

response 24 of 25:

Mar 31 15:32 UTC 1997

I'll be voting no on this one for the following reasons:

1. The staff conferences is already protected from unregistered
   reading.

2. Saying what unregisted users can't do, like "participate", is
   going to get very confusing.  I'd rather any policies state
   what they can do.

3. The current policy will be implemented as soon as the necessary
   software changes have been implemented.  This won't happen any
   sooner if we say that in a policy.  My understanding, from
   both janc and srw is that they aren't holding up the implementation
   for any other reason than finding the necessary time to do 
   the coding.  

4. The first amendment is useless.  The Bylaws allow for both
   Board votes and membership votes and to try to determine
   ahead of time, by policy, how an issue will be settled, is
   not a "Good Thing".

5. The second amendment is dangerous.  A Fairwitness should never
   be given the authority the censor all responses by a user.  There
   are extreme exceptions here but they certainly have nothing
   to do with this amendment.


When I suggested a vote might be helpful it was with the idea of either a
membership or Board vote to allow the installation and use of a "mask"
utility.  What Colleen proposed gets to the "masking" issue as almost an
aside bringing with it all kinds of unnecessary, cloudy, and
possibly harmful policy. 

As I said, should this come to a vote I'll be saying "no".