|
Grex > Coop13 > #111: A Proposal to Clarify Grex's Stance on Deleting Items | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 235 responses total. |
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.
|
jp2
|
|
response 150 of 235:
|
Feb 27 01:32 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 151 of 235:
|
Feb 27 01:36 UTC 2004 |
No, you'd just find something else to carp about. As you've amply
demonstrated over the past several years.
|
jp2
|
|
response 152 of 235:
|
Feb 27 02:02 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
davel
|
|
response 153 of 235:
|
Feb 27 14:34 UTC 2004 |
Proverbs 26:4, Joe.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 154 of 235:
|
Feb 28 04:04 UTC 2004 |
I'm going to try again:
An item's author, the person who originally enters an item,
may remove that item from the system, in its entirety,
at any time before someone responds to it using a different
login ID. After another person has responded, an item may be
removed only if it violates the general policies of grex or
of the conference it was entered in, or if it clearly abets
criminal activity. Examples of the former include a very
large item that attempts to fill all available disk space,
items posted more than once or in several conferences at
once, repetitive items and items that contain terminal
escape sequences. Examples of the latter include items
that contain social security numbers or credit card numbers.
These examples are not exhaustive; fair-witnesses and staff
have discretion to act in the best interests of grex and
its users in accordance with general policies.
Specific changes, for those tired of close readings:
1) specified that the discussion is of removing the item from
the system.
2) Used "violates the general policies . . . " instead of "clear
and present danger."
I don't have an easy way to test killing linked items, but that's an
implementation issue, not a policy issue. :)
|
jp2
|
|
response 155 of 235:
|
Feb 28 15:39 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 156 of 235:
|
Mar 1 17:05 UTC 2004 |
Ok, I'm much more comfortable with that.
I can support this.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 157 of 235:
|
Mar 3 03:20 UTC 2004 |
I've sent a message to voteadm with response 154 above as the text of
the proposal. I'd kind of wanted the vote to end at a midnight that Mark
would be able to get to the mailbox the next day, but I guess it really
doesn't matter.
I have not included a remedy for violation in the text because I really
don't consider it necessary: the remedy to a clear abuse is usually
itself clear. It's when it's not clear that something is an abuse that
things get muddy.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 158 of 235:
|
Mar 3 13:25 UTC 2004 |
HUH?!?! The remedy was clear last time and the right thing was not done.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 159 of 235:
|
Mar 3 13:40 UTC 2004 |
No, the remedy was NOT clear. Some of us are still not convinced the removals
were abuse. If this proposal is aprroved, future such removals would clearly
be abuse.
|