|
Grex > Coop13 > #360: Member initative: Allow members to host images | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 15 new of 182 responses total. |
tod
|
|
response 168 of 182:
| 
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 182:
|
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 182:
|
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 182:
|
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 182:
|
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 182:
|
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 182:
|
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 182:
|
Sep 26 23:07 UTC 2006 |
I forward-actively endorse this proposal, having just purchased a 3 month
membership.
|
tod
|
|
response 176 of 182:
|
Sep 26 23:41 UTC 2006 |
I forward-actively endorse this proposal
|
cross
|
|
response 177 of 182:
|
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 182:
|
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 182:
|
Sep 27 00:33 UTC 2006 |
That's five. We need one more.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 180 of 182:
|
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 182:
|
Sep 27 05:52 UTC 2006 |
We'll see how the vote goes, assuming there is one.
|
naftee
|
|
response 182 of 182:
|
Sep 29 03:36 UTC 2006 |
I think this should go to vote. A five-member endorsement is pretty good.
|