|
Grex > Coop > #39: Member Proposal: Create Three Classes of Grex Accounts: Users, Community Users, Validated Users |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 150 responses total. |
gelinas
|
|
response 101 of 150:
| 
Sep 12 02:24 UTC 2007 |
I added the link, but not by using 'peek.'
|
maus
|
|
response 102 of 150:
|
Sep 12 05:11 UTC 2007 |
resp:100 I believe that since they would have to use something like
Paypal, it would tie a real-world identity (i.e. one that can have its
internet access revoked by its IAP or one that can have criminal charges
leveled against it). Additionally, if a person made and activated a
whole bunch of accounts with the same Paypal ID, it would raise red
flags, and remedial action could be taken when the accounts are
activated, rather than waiting until they start being used for abusive
purposes.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 103 of 150:
|
Sep 12 11:28 UTC 2007 |
Chad, there is no requirement that anyone pay anything.
The paypal $1.00 option is only if you do not choose to submit the other
photo ID options.
Paypal accounts are tied to real people, that can be traced. If any
account was used to violate our Terms of Service, all accounts tied to
that person would be blocked and no new ones issued. Spamming
conferences, individuals, and other denial of service attacks are
sufficient to get your accounts blocked.
Criminal activity would be prosecuted. All accounts tied to that person
would be blocked and no new ones issued.
The point of validation is to give us access to the identity of the
person creating the accounts. The initial validation will also be
sufficient to recognize a personality behind the facade, and will evolve
to meet our needs to achieve that recognition.
If we can't do that reliably, I will suggest we remove the intermediate
class and only allow verified accounts. If we continue to experience our
current levels of user harassment and destruction of the community, it
will be our best option.
|
keesan
|
|
response 104 of 150:
|
Sep 12 12:13 UTC 2007 |
The voting program is somewhat confusing. Choose between candidates no (y/n)
and yes (y/n). For instance, vote n for no and y for yes. I tried to vote
'y' twice and was scolded.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 105 of 150:
|
Sep 12 13:03 UTC 2007 |
That sounds right. You are only able to cast a vote for passage (yes)
or defeat (no). You can't vote yes on both.
|
remmers
|
|
response 106 of 150:
|
Sep 12 14:57 UTC 2007 |
Yes, the terminal-based version of the vote program is a bit confusing,
and I'm afraid it's my fault. There are actually two separate "vote"
programs, one for board elections and one for member proposals. I
thought I had documented how to install and configure both, but upon
looking at grexdoc, I see that I only included instructions for the
board election program, so that's what's running. It's usable for
voting on proposals too, but the interface is more tuned for voting on
candidates in an election. Hence if you want to vote for the proposal,
you have to vote "y" for Yes and "n" for No, which works but is
definitely weird.
I suggest we live with the strange interface for this election, and I'll
update the docs so that future proposal votes get a more suitable
interface. Apologies.
|
mary
|
|
response 107 of 150:
|
Sep 12 15:00 UTC 2007 |
I'm going to support this proposal, but, upon closer
inspection, I do have a concern. The wording is overly
specific for a membership vote. If the board or staff
should want to change what specific question is asked
during the social validation, they are pretty locked in
by this vote. Likewise for when accounts get reaped
or even what is considered a minimum PayPal payment. Too
much detail is hard coded to allow for tweaking.
The board could, of course, vote to change any of the
stated details, But they'd be overriding a membership
vote. We've been pretty darn careful to avoid setting up
that situation up until now.
I'm sorry to mention this so late in the process. My
fault for not reading response #66 as the final wording.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 108 of 150:
|
Sep 12 16:35 UTC 2007 |
*sigh*
I understand. But let's get this passed, and tweak it later.
My suspicion is that it will need to be revised after we have a bit more
experience with the "Community User" class and process anyway.
|
cross
|
|
response 109 of 150:
|
Sep 12 17:50 UTC 2007 |
Regarding #107; Valid concerns. I agree with Colleen; let's get it passed,
and then amended with another membership vote. I think that's probably the
cleanest solution.
|
mary
|
|
response 110 of 150:
|
Sep 12 19:22 UTC 2007 |
No, it's not clean. It's more quick and dirty. ;-)
|
scholar
|
|
response 111 of 150:
|
Sep 12 19:38 UTC 2007 |
This motion cannot be voted on because there are only five members who support
bringing it to vote. My guess is gelinas counted nharmon's response 4 ("I
support this") as an endorsement of bringing the motion to vote, but section
5.c. of the bylaws makes it very clear that for an endorsement to be
considered, it must consist of a statement to the effect that the motion
should be voted on.
|
cross
|
|
response 112 of 150:
|
Sep 12 20:17 UTC 2007 |
Regarding #110; You're right, but it's cleaner than the board modifying a
member proposal after the fact....
Regarding #111; Check out the legal definition of, ``reasonable
interpretation.'' Nate, would you care to clarify your statements?
|
scholar
|
|
response 113 of 150:
|
Sep 12 21:04 UTC 2007 |
I also add that I should not be counted as endorsing bringing this motion to
vote. While I support the motion and have made statements to that affect,
I do not believe there is enough support among the membership to make this
a worthwhile vote.
|
scholar
|
|
response 114 of 150:
|
Sep 12 21:09 UTC 2007 |
I also contest cmcgee's statements being construed as an endorsement to bring
this to vote. While she she did state that the motion was ready to be voted
on, that does not imply she AGREED the motion should be voted on.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 115 of 150:
|
Sep 12 21:09 UTC 2007 |
Well to be clear, *I* do support bringing this motion to vote. Since it
is a board initiative, I believe that, as an individual, I can support
this proposal.
|
scholar
|
|
response 116 of 150:
|
Sep 12 21:13 UTC 2007 |
You didn't make an endorsement before the deadline.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 117 of 150:
|
Sep 12 21:14 UTC 2007 |
you can certainly interpret my asking to bring it to a vote as an
endorsement to bring it to a vote.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 118 of 150:
|
Sep 12 21:21 UTC 2007 |
My preferred alternative is to finish this vote.
Another option would be for the board to pass this as policy, and
implement it immediately.
Then we can patiently wait until such time as the membership can get its
act together, and vote it up or down.
While that's not a better alternative, it is one I'm willing to
entertain.
|
scholar
|
|
response 119 of 150:
|
Sep 12 21:22 UTC 2007 |
No, you can't.
The bylaws are very clear:
Endorsement shall consist of a statement by the
member in the discussion item agreeing that the motion should
be voted on.
In response #45, you stated "This is ready to be voted on." This is simply
a statement that in your opinion the appropriate conditions had been met for
the motion to be voted on, but it cannot be construed as an endorsement.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 120 of 150:
|
Sep 12 21:26 UTC 2007 |
I say that that's what I meant. Are you telling me I don't know what I
was meant?
|
scholar
|
|
response 121 of 150:
|
Sep 12 21:27 UTC 2007 |
It's possible that's what you meant, but it doesn't meet the very clear
criteria for an endorsement required by the by-laws.
|
cross
|
|
response 122 of 150:
|
Sep 12 21:31 UTC 2007 |
David, knock it off.
|
scholar
|
|
response 123 of 150:
|
Sep 12 21:39 UTC 2007 |
Knock what off? Making sure Cyberspace, Inc. follows its own by-laws? People
were told repeatedly in this very item to make sure they followed the
requirements for endorsements and not many of them did. That should tell you
something.
I'd appreciate it if gelinas could post a list of the people he considered
to be endorsing this proposal as well as the statements they made that which
he considered to be their endorsements. According to a post he made, there
were six such people -- only one more than the minimum required to bring a
motion to vote.
|
cross
|
|
response 124 of 150:
|
Sep 12 21:41 UTC 2007 |
You're being pedantic in arguing semantics; why?
|
scholar
|
|
response 125 of 150:
|
Sep 12 21:54 UTC 2007 |
This response has been erased.
|