|
Grex > Coop13 > #75: Member Initative: Restore the Murdered Items | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 424 responses total. |
jmsaul
|
|
response 190 of 424:
| 
Jan 21 03:12 UTC 2004 |
Don't make the mistake of believing that all the Grexers you're talking to
are in agreement on this issue. I might be remembering wrong, but my
recollection is that aruba does not think that what Valerie did was okay.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 191 of 424:
|
Jan 21 03:28 UTC 2004 |
(And others have changed their minds.)
|
cyklone
|
|
response 192 of 424:
|
Jan 21 03:56 UTC 2004 |
Of course I do not mean to generalize, and I do hope more level heads on
grex prevail. I am responding to those who are twisting logic into shapes
not even a pretzel would recognize. Unfortunately, some of those posters
are people I expect better from . . . .
Re #190: But I get the feeling he doesn't want to reinstate jep's item. I
strongly believe those items should not get a pass just because he is once
removed from the acts of valerie. Again, it's like getting too much money
from the teller. I may not have any legal liability but I still give the
money back. Jep should not be trying to benefit from valerie's wrongful
acts at the expense of free and uncensored speech. The items should be
returned to grex.
|
naftee
|
|
response 193 of 424:
|
Jan 21 04:29 UTC 2004 |
Yeah I agree. It's actually an insult to the staff to say that if there's
a disk failure, they're not responsible for any lost content and won't do
anything about it, tough shit, etc. etc., when they worked EXTREMELY hard to
recover mail from the failed mail disk. They could have just forgotten about
that now, couldn't they?
But of course, saying that someone willfully deleting files is the same as
a hardware failure is patently ridiculous.
|
bhoward
|
|
response 194 of 424:
|
Jan 21 06:50 UTC 2004 |
Re#192 and others: Briefly digressing from festivities...
Ultimately, the heads that will prevail in this matter are those of the
members who bother to vote on the current proposals. Whether they are
level will depend on your view of things and on which way the votes go.
You amongst several others seem hell-bent on browbeating jep into
admitting he is wrong and that all of this is his fault. In the
processing of doing so, I think you are confusing the fact that you
disagree with his view and the fact that you don't like that he even
asked that they be removed with some notion that jep had any authority
in this matter or responsibility for them having actually been deleted.
jep can ask until he's blue in the face but he is not responsible for
them having been removed in any way relevant to official procedures
on grex. Valerie made the call, deleted the items and in doing so
assumed responsibility for the act.
Staff receive ridiculous threats, requests, commands and demands everyday.
Part of their job is to try sorting through all of that and make
judgement calls on which should be actioned, which should be ignored,
and what should deferred to the membership or board for resolution.
Now if you are arguing that jep had some moral responsibility to not make
the request, he might counter that he has a greater moral responsibility
to protect what he sees as a threat to his family. Fine, whatever.
Pick your priorities, chose a side and argue away but that's his opinion
versus yours and the results of such a debate still in no way makes jep
responsible for Valerie's actions.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 195 of 424:
|
Jan 21 13:22 UTC 2004 |
You are missing the point, then. I do understand the difference between jep's
request and valerie's actions. What I would like made clear to voters is that
they are participating in an ad hoc process in which a user such as jep can
make a request, the granting of which directly contradicts grex's professed
dedication to free and uncensored speech. In such cases I would submit the
person making the request has a very high burden to show harm that outweighs
the harms to grex's professed principles. Jep has not even remotely met that
burden. And the "personal favors for favored persons" crowd has been offering
up justifications that are contradicted BY JEP'S OWN WORDS!
|
jp2
|
|
response 196 of 424:
|
Jan 21 14:17 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 197 of 424:
|
Jan 21 14:19 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 198 of 424:
|
Jan 21 14:20 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 199 of 424:
|
Jan 21 14:22 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 200 of 424:
|
Jan 21 14:24 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 201 of 424:
|
Jan 21 14:45 UTC 2004 |
I'm impressed with how official-looking it is, at least...
|
jp2
|
|
response 202 of 424:
|
Jan 21 14:52 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jep
|
|
response 203 of 424:
|
Jan 21 16:14 UTC 2004 |
I would like to ask the Board to clarify the precedent of member
proposals before either this proposal, or my proposal as outlined in
item:76, are voted on. This proposal and my proposal will be voted on
at the same time, and will conflict with one another. I think it is
necessary to make it clear which will override the other before either
or both are presented to the membership for a decision.
I hope jp2 will agree with me on my request, and agree to have his
proposal, along with mine, postponed until that determination is made.
I hope all participating parties will see this as a reasonable
request. My intent is to keep from having to have another round of
user proposals, which is what will happen, I think, if two proposals
are passed at the same time which directly contradict one another.
|
jp2
|
|
response 204 of 424:
|
Jan 21 16:37 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 205 of 424:
|
Jan 21 16:52 UTC 2004 |
There is no established precedent of which I am aware on Grex for
two or more conflicting proposals with simultaneous or overlapping
voting periods, so here is the most basic logical approach I can
think of:
1) Assuming there is no specific timeline for implementation of the
proposal included within it (or any of them) they should be
implemented in chronological order of the determination of the
outcomes of voting. However, in the interests of resource
conservation, implementation should be delayed until the outcome of
the final resolution is determined. In other words, if three
potentially conflicting resolutions are in process simultaneously,
then implementation should be done in order but after all three are
determined. This way, the end result is the same as it would
otherwise be, but the minimum of doing and undoing is undertaken.
2) If the proposals incorporate implementation timelines, then those
timelines should be observed as closely as is reasonably possible
considering that such implementation is dependent on the efforts of
volunteers whose priorities do not necessarily allow Grex member
resolutions to take absolute precedence.
3) If some proposals include timelines and some do not, then the
approach should be 2) where applicable and 1) where applicable,
though in practical terms it should be expected that the overall end
result is likely to resemble 1) a lot more than 2).
|
jep
|
|
response 206 of 424:
|
Jan 21 17:19 UTC 2004 |
Eric, as jp2 mentioned, and the numbering of the items shows anyway, my
proposal was entered after his. Would mine therefore modify his and
take precedence in that way? Can his exclude mine from passing? Can a
user proposal ban further user proposals on a subject? Or will they be
concurrent -- the vote start and end at the same time for both?
It has been suggested that mine is more limited and would take
precedence on that basis. Do you agree? Does the Board and the
Staff? (This is what led to my request.)
Both his proposal and mine have an implied timeline of "take effect
immediately upon passing". My proposal is to *not* take an action.
There's no timeline for being inactive on something; you can not-do
something today, or next week, or in 2010.
I don't think it's clear on what happens if both his proposal and mine
pass. I think it's valid to ask that that be determined before the
proposals are voted on.
|
jep
|
|
response 207 of 424:
|
Jan 21 17:26 UTC 2004 |
re resp:204: Jamie, it would be in the best interests of Grex that
there be no conflicting proposals. Do you agree?
It would be best if you and I can agree to merge our proposals so as to
avoid conflicting simultaneous votes. The clearest way to do that, in
my opinion, is to split the issue of valerie's items from the issue of
the items I asked her to delete. Then there can be two unambiguous
votes with direct and clear consequences. We'd just have to agree how
the one on my items would be worded. It seems to me possible we can do
that.
What say you?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 208 of 424:
|
Jan 21 17:29 UTC 2004 |
You are right that it is not clear what happens if both proposals pass. I
suggest that people consider that when casting their votes, and vote
accordingly.
I am aware of a Constitutional precedent for Section 4, but I still think
it inappropriate for grex. On that basis alone, I'm inclined to vote
against this proposal.
|
jp2
|
|
response 209 of 424:
|
Jan 21 17:32 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 210 of 424:
|
Jan 21 17:36 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 211 of 424:
|
Jan 21 17:40 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 212 of 424:
|
Jan 21 17:47 UTC 2004 |
Each proposal must be weighed on its own merits and implemented
within the context of the state of reality at the time it is passed.
If the wording of one proposal is mooted by the wording of another,
then so be it. The later proposal has the advantage of being
modifiable after the earlier is set in stone and being voted upon.
The proposals do not carry any weight however, until they are
successfully passed.
|
jp2
|
|
response 213 of 424:
|
Jan 21 17:50 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jep
|
|
response 214 of 424:
|
Jan 21 18:14 UTC 2004 |
Jamie, I am not going to drop my proposal.
Your point #4 isn't relevant to my proposal, you know.
I've offered a clear way to avoid any ambiguity, any conflict between
the two proposals, and to put the issues to the users in the most
straightforward way. I don't see any advantage to anyone in making it
confusing. I don't see any reason why we can't disagree but be
collegial. I'm not willing to give up my proposal just to get along,
though.
|