|
Grex > Agorage > #6: Member initative: Allow members to host images | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 17 new of 183 responses total. |
scholar
|
|
response 167 of 183:
| 
Sep 25 18:03 UTC 2006 |
Re. 163: Yet there aren't enough people who need to use the dial-up lines
to support them. As long as increasing services to members also helps provide
services to non-members, which seems to be a necessity these days, I don't
see a problem with it.
|
tod
|
|
response 168 of 183:
|
Sep 25 18:53 UTC 2006 |
re #167
Check each proposal for ego bruising. Remember, everything was started
initially by someone and you're likely going to offend them by offering
logical improvements which clash with historical reverence. I'm guessing the
best way to actually get momentum on a "change" is to have the originator's
buy-off. Clue me in if I'm off base here.
|
naftee
|
|
response 169 of 183:
|
Sep 25 21:53 UTC 2006 |
re 150
Why not make GreX image hosting open to all, then ? We kill 2 birds with one
(kidney) stone !
|
cross
|
|
response 170 of 183:
|
Sep 25 22:29 UTC 2006 |
Regarding #168; I'm beginning to form the opinion that #27 in garage is of
that nature.
|
keesan
|
|
response 171 of 183:
|
Sep 26 19:19 UTC 2006 |
I thought the extra member privileges were restricted to verified users to
prevent vandals from getting loose via grex.
|
cross
|
|
response 172 of 183:
|
Sep 26 19:22 UTC 2006 |
That's true. The question is whether to allow for extra "member perks" in
hopes of bringing in new members.
|
aruba
|
|
response 173 of 183:
|
Sep 26 22:49 UTC 2006 |
It's quite correct that the philosophy of keeping the gap between members
and nonmembers is not written in stone. The membership can vote to add
services for members if it wants to. So I'm for voting on this, to see how
the membership feels. But we need some more members to endorse taking it to
a vote.
A number of people keep making noises to the effect that new ideas are being
repressed by "the man", or "the inner circle", or whatever; that's clearly
not the case here. All it will take is for 6 members to endorse bringing
the proposal to a vote, and we'll vote on it. If you're a member and want
that, say so. If you're not a member but want that, consider becoming a
member.
|
cross
|
|
response 174 of 183:
|
Sep 26 23:04 UTC 2006 |
(Of course, as the number of members goes up, the number of people required
to endorse the proposal goes up proportionately. In this case, that probably
won't matter.)
|
cross
|
|
response 175 of 183:
|
Sep 26 23:07 UTC 2006 |
I forward-actively endorse this proposal, having just purchased a 3 month
membership.
|
tod
|
|
response 176 of 183:
|
Sep 26 23:41 UTC 2006 |
I forward-actively endorse this proposal
|
cross
|
|
response 177 of 183:
|
Sep 26 23:46 UTC 2006 |
So far, by my count, that's scholar, aruba, tod and cross that have endorsed
bringing the proposal to a vote. nharmon, are you a member?
|
nharmon
|
|
response 178 of 183:
|
Sep 27 00:00 UTC 2006 |
I am now (having just purchased a one year membership 2 minutes ago). I
forward-actively endorse this proposal.
|
cross
|
|
response 179 of 183:
|
Sep 27 00:33 UTC 2006 |
That's five. We need one more.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 180 of 183:
|
Sep 27 04:03 UTC 2006 |
Of course, if the proposal can't even get enough endorsements to go to a vote,
that's a fairly plain statement that the membership isn't interested, isn't
it?
|
scholar
|
|
response 181 of 183:
|
Sep 27 05:52 UTC 2006 |
We'll see how the vote goes, assuming there is one.
|
naftee
|
|
response 182 of 183:
|
Sep 29 03:36 UTC 2006 |
I think this should go to vote. A five-member endorsement is pretty good.
|
cross
|
|
response 183 of 183:
|
May 31 04:50 UTC 2017 |
Interestingly, as far as I know, this never went to a vote. But at
some point, apparently through a configuration slip-up, Grex started
allowing image hosting. Once the cat was out of the bag it stayed
out and we never went back to banning images, but it never became
an issue. Hordes of users didn't descend on the system to post porn,
and we never had any complaints or even questions about it, as far
as I can recall. It would seem the arguments against were a bit
specious.
One of the arguments raised against hosting images was that there
were better image hosting services out there (photobucket, flickr,
etc). However, seemingly no one foresaw the obvious corollary: that
those interested in hosting high-volume images would do so on some
site like that, not on dinky li'l 'ol Grex. And that seems to be
more or less what happened in the end.
|