response 113 of 393:

Jan 7 14:44 UTC 2004

I have a radical suggestion.

I believe that taking this action represented a lapse in judgement 
on the part of Valerie, and ultimately, a (relatively minor) 
compromise of the stated values of Grex.

Therefore, and particularly in light of Valerie's ambivalence toward 
the notion of remaining on staff -- which I feel presents the most 
significant risk of harm to Grex -- I would like to suggest that 
Valerie be relieved of staff responsibility, including root, but 
that she be allowed continued access to the staff conference and 
mailing list (if she so desires), so that effectively she will be in 
a staff-emeritus status.  This way, she will still be in a position 
to provide other staff the confidential benefits of her expertise 
and knowledge, but she will no longer feel obligated to spend large 
quantities of time performing services for an organization to which 
she no longer apparently feels committed.

This may seem harsh, but as far as I'm concerned, though Valerie's 
value as a resource is quite significant, her value as root staff is 
compromised by her stated ambivalence about it.

I do not think this action represents a bow to the trouble-makers 
and antagonists, or a punishment to Valerie, but I think it does 
responsibly address both the concerns about actions perceived as 
inappropriate (whether or not they in fact are) and Valerie's own 
need to focus on making her living and supporting her family without 
the distractions of a largely unappreciative crowd of Grexers riding 
her.

response 117 of 393:

Jan 7 16:27 UTC 2004

I would prefer Valerie remained a staff member and if possible just put back
the responses of Mary and anyone else who wanted their responses put back.
I don't care about my responses.  I want to thank Valerie for being the first
and often the only one to answer all the emails I sent to staff.  I would be
happy to make a special exception for this particular item deletion.  As Jim
points out, parents don't always think clearly ;=).  My mother wrote some
pretty embarassing things in her diary about us kids which I would not have
wanted to be made public.  (At least it was my brother who had the bedwetting
problem, and not me).  Valerie, thanks for sharing with us.

response 119 of 393:

Jan 7 17:21 UTC 2004

I would not be surprised if, under the mistaken impression that
"a user can delete any item that he or she entered" was actual Grex
policy, the staff actually gets requests to delete items in the
Coop conference.  And with them, of course, all of the relevant
policy discussion that is and should remain part of the public
record.

Here's something to think about:  If the deletion policy becomes
a reality, guess who gets to delete this item - and with it,
a lot of discussion of an important policy issue.

response 123 of 393:

Jan 7 17:47 UTC 2004

I'm with Remmers.  I think there's a huge distinction between being able to
delete text you entered, and deleting text other people entered.  Entering
the item shouldn't give you control over the text of everyone who has
responded to it.

response 125 of 393:

Jan 7 18:33 UTC 2004

Back when there was all the controversy about whether users should be
able to delete their own responses beyond the ability of ordinary users
to read them, I believe there was general consensus that each user owned
the copyright and all the rights pertaining thereto to every post they
made.  (The disagreement was over whether or not Grex still had the
right to continue to publish them since they had been posted here, and
whether, even if we did have that right, we ought to exercise it against
the user's wishes.)  That is; the reason we gave users the right to
delete their own posts was because they were the legal owners thereof. 
Are you people arguing now that they aren't really the owners; the
author of the item is the legal owner?  

If you really want an item in which you are the owner of (and have the
rights to delete) every post, here's how to do it:  moderate it.  Make
an item.  Freeze it.  Enter in the item text that this item is moderated
by you; to respond, one should email you the text of their response, and
that you would enter it at your leisure if you felt like it, possibly
editing it beyond all recognition.  I imagine a sufficiently clever and
motivated person could even automate this process.  

response 129 of 393:

Jan 7 18:42 UTC 2004

Staff is already getting requests to have whole items removed.
Evidently, others are having second thoughts about the public
discussions they started.  Yuck.

My advice would be for anyone who has responses *they've* made
that they now regret making, censor *your* comments.  Now.

But allowing users to kill other user's responses is a huge
shift in our philosopy.  Any change in policy should follow
public discussion and a vote by the membership.

I would be against any deal which would *sanction* a staff
member's abuse of power in exchange for their resignation.

response 131 of 393:

Jan 7 18:52 UTC 2004

I also think there is a difference between changing the policy so that 
some items can be put in control of the authors of said items and 
deleting items (and posts) that were entered prior to this discussion. 

I am not so sure it would be a bad idea to give item authors in certain 
conferences control over their items. In the future. 

response 135 of 393:

Jan 7 19:16 UTC 2004

M-net would be the natural choice, but I think that'd be too easy. ;>

response 137 of 393:

Jan 7 19:36 UTC 2004

Regarding #128; That's specious.  No one yelled fire in a crowded
theater here.  Some people did something that offended someone and hurt
her feelings.  Rude?  Insensitive?  Stupid?  Maybe.  Seriously damaging
to other lives or property?  No, not at all.

There might be valid reasons to delete entire items: a serial killer
decides to pick an item and track down everyone who ever posted to it
and kill them.  That seems like a good reason to get rid of the item in
question (and call the FBI), but that's not what happened here.