|
Grex > Coop13 > #111: A Proposal to Clarify Grex's Stance on Deleting Items | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 235 responses total. |
albaugh
|
|
response 125 of 235:
| 
Feb 25 23:34 UTC 2004 |
> I still think that if Valerie had thought that item authors could NOT
> delete their items, she wouldn't have removed hers.
I don't want to pick a scab, but I think the evidence shows the contrary,
so please don't bring up this irrelevant issue any more.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 126 of 235:
|
Feb 26 00:43 UTC 2004 |
Good point. While I commend gelinas for his efforts, I'm not sure the
recent past is addressed by this. To me the issue is what do you do when
staff goes berserk and abuses their privileges? In those situations, I
would like a policy in which the presumption is that all such damage must
be undone ASAP.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 127 of 235:
|
Feb 26 01:06 UTC 2004 |
Yes, I read that sentence to clearly forbid me from removing such an item.
I think we are painting ouselves into a corner here trying to make explict
rules for decisions like this. In its current formation, I'd vote no. I'd
like fws to have better options.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 128 of 235:
|
Feb 26 01:08 UTC 2004 |
Whereas I believe having a policy that it should not be done in the first
place is sufficient.
Usually, if something should not be done, the remedy when it is done
is obvious. I especially think such to be the case with this policy.
|
tod
|
|
response 129 of 235:
|
Feb 26 01:13 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 130 of 235:
|
Feb 26 01:15 UTC 2004 |
tod, drop it.
Can you suggest better wording, cmcgee?
|
tod
|
|
response 131 of 235:
|
Feb 26 01:28 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 132 of 235:
|
Feb 26 01:50 UTC 2004 |
Restore it, of course.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 133 of 235:
|
Feb 26 01:50 UTC 2004 |
Once the policy is in place, no vote is required to undo its violation.
|
salad
|
|
response 134 of 235:
|
Feb 26 02:28 UTC 2004 |
But then users will say that either the policy does not apply, or the actions
do not fall in the category covered by the current policy.
You should know this. It already happened.
|
jp2
|
|
response 135 of 235:
|
Feb 26 02:56 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 136 of 235:
|
Feb 26 02:59 UTC 2004 |
How about something simpler, which still leaves fws discretion:
Any user who has posted an item, or a response to an item, to a Grex
conference from which that item has subsequently been removed may
appeal that removal to the Board of Directors. If at least two
members of the Board publicly announce that they consider the matter
worthy of review, the Board will vote at their earliest
convenience on whether to undo the item removal.
|
jp2
|
|
response 137 of 235:
|
Feb 26 03:01 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 138 of 235:
|
Feb 26 03:08 UTC 2004 |
(This provides for fairly quick relief in the event of injust
removal, while avoiding definitional difficulties. Also, a
membership vote is always the default final arbiter, but hopefully,
a board vote would reflect the likely outcome and thereby short-
circuit that tedious process.)
|
other
|
|
response 139 of 235:
|
Feb 26 03:09 UTC 2004 |
If you think this is micromanagement, you have a very unusual
definition of the word.
|
jp2
|
|
response 140 of 235:
|
Feb 26 03:22 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 141 of 235:
|
Feb 26 03:33 UTC 2004 |
It's amusing when you argue with and insult yourself, but you're
both wrong. Your way would force the system to attempt to define
exactly what can and cannot be removed for cause -- a patently
impossible task. The only practical option is to explicitly support
the existing system of discretion in the hands of those to whom
responsibility has been given, and back it up with an appeal process
which frees the system from this burdensome, tedious and seemingly
endless recrimination.
|
tod
|
|
response 142 of 235:
|
Feb 26 04:12 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
rational
|
|
response 143 of 235:
|
Feb 26 04:13 UTC 2004 |
I think Valerie's doing it.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 144 of 235:
|
Feb 26 04:15 UTC 2004 |
The backup tapes that were in the Pumpkin are now in my house, for off-site
storage. I don't know who will do the next back-up, nor when.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 145 of 235:
|
Feb 26 04:30 UTC 2004 |
Re #143: LOL
|
jp2
|
|
response 146 of 235:
|
Feb 26 13:10 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
salad
|
|
response 147 of 235:
|
Feb 27 00:38 UTC 2004 |
I bet one night valerie'll go over to gelinas' house, get him drunk, have sex
with him and steal the tapes.
|
rational
|
|
response 148 of 235:
|
Feb 27 00:44 UTC 2004 |
gelinas's.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 149 of 235:
|
Feb 27 01:27 UTC 2004 |
#146 exactly expresses the problem: Policies have to assume reasonable
people people behaving reasonably. Maliciousness such as #146 describes
is not easily controlled.
|