|
Grex > Coop > #269: Opening up the staff conference? | |
|
| Author |
Message |
cross
|
|
Opening up the staff conference?
| 
Feb 18 00:05 UTC 2010 |
I'd like to propose that we open up the staff conferences to the general
public. Sensitive matters could, if need be, be discussed via email (with
a record kept on the Google Group's archive).
|
| 49 responses total. |
tsty
|
|
response 1 of 49:
|
Feb 18 04:29 UTC 2010 |
ummmmmmmm, no.
|
cross
|
|
response 2 of 49:
|
Feb 18 05:51 UTC 2010 |
Why not?
|
krj
|
|
response 3 of 49:
|
Feb 18 17:12 UTC 2010 |
Is it proposed that this be done with a staff conference restart,
so that new material is public?
Or is it proposed to open up the archives to the public?
|
cross
|
|
response 4 of 49:
|
Feb 19 03:44 UTC 2010 |
I think we should open up the archives.
|
tonster
|
|
response 5 of 49:
|
Feb 19 16:35 UTC 2010 |
I think there are reasons to keep aspects of a staff conference private,
particularly if they contain information related to specific steps on
how things are done on the system. I like the way m-net has set this up
for that reason. stuff in sysop is public, stuff in staff is private.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 6 of 49:
|
Feb 19 18:40 UTC 2010 |
Kinda like Grex's garage cf?
|
denise
|
|
response 7 of 49:
|
Feb 19 19:59 UTC 2010 |
I agree that there may be some aspects/stuff that should be kept
confidential.
|
tonster
|
|
response 8 of 49:
|
Feb 19 21:57 UTC 2010 |
resp:6: I'm a member of garage, but have never really participated, so
quite possibly garage is equivalent to sysop. If that's the case, then
I don't think any changes are necessary. I would also say I wouldn't be
surprised if there were many things in staff that would have been more
appropriate for the open garage.cf.
|
cross
|
|
response 9 of 49:
|
Feb 20 17:04 UTC 2010 |
I think Grex needs more transparency.
|
veek
|
|
response 10 of 49:
|
Feb 21 03:33 UTC 2010 |
yup! More than anything else!
|
krj
|
|
response 11 of 49:
|
Feb 23 01:14 UTC 2010 |
I think Grex needs to stick to its contracts: things written by
staff with the presumption that they would remain private should
remain private. There's a good chance that some of the stuff in
there could be legally actionable if published -- speculation
about system vandals, for a big one. (Note that I do not have
access to the staff conference.)
|
cross
|
|
response 12 of 49:
|
Feb 23 01:53 UTC 2010 |
It is stated publicly on Grex that NOTHING should have the expectation
of privacy here.
You are right. You don't have access to the staff conference. You
don't know what's in there. But why shouldn't people?
|
veek
|
|
response 13 of 49:
|
Feb 23 03:23 UTC 2010 |
Re #11: how's that? the reason it's so difficult to prosecute someone is
because of the anonymity, but that works both ways. Also, Grex wouldn't be
liable, just the person being impolite. In any case, we could start from
scratch and henceforth.. make staff world readable??
|
cross
|
|
response 14 of 49:
|
Feb 23 04:38 UTC 2010 |
I'm down with that.
|
veek
|
|
response 15 of 49:
|
Feb 23 09:36 UTC 2010 |
This response has been erased.
|
cross
|
|
response 16 of 49:
|
Feb 23 10:51 UTC 2010 |
Veek, "I'm down with that" means "I agree."
|
veek
|
|
response 17 of 49:
|
Feb 23 12:01 UTC 2010 |
ah! cool :)
|
unicorn
|
|
response 18 of 49:
|
Feb 25 02:17 UTC 2010 |
In one of my responses in the staff conference, I mentioned a couple of
things Chad could do to get past the script I wrote to prevent his
attacks on Grex, and why it wouldn't be practical to prevent those,
or asking for suggestions in one case. Another response includes
Chad's phone number (not posted by me). Are these things we really want
to make public?
|
veek
|
|
response 19 of 49:
|
Feb 25 02:40 UTC 2010 |
we could start afresh - it steps around this issue while giving us what we
need. I see nothing wrong with making his number public (though it's rude i
guess.. and possibly a bit unfair) perhaps it could be purged? anyway, best
to step around such sticky issues.
No one seems to object to a new, refreshed staff conference being made
public.. so lets go with that?
|
cross
|
|
response 20 of 49:
|
Feb 25 15:47 UTC 2010 |
I say we restart and make public.
|
krj
|
|
response 21 of 49:
|
Feb 25 22:41 UTC 2010 |
I'm fine with public going forward; if everyone writing in staff
conf knows that it is public, then they will find other venues for
information which should be held more in confidence.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 22 of 49:
|
Feb 26 03:32 UTC 2010 |
And thus will the new staff cf become dead with nobody posting to it?
|
veek
|
|
response 23 of 49:
|
Feb 26 03:46 UTC 2010 |
not really.. why assume such things anyway. lets try it and see how it works
out! if it sucks then there's nothing stopping us from rolling back. we
SHOULD try out more stuff without having to constantly worry about failures!!
|
tonster
|
|
response 24 of 49:
|
Feb 26 04:09 UTC 2010 |
what's one more dead cf? :)
|