|
Grex > Oldcoop > #111: A Proposal to Clarify Grex's Stance on Deleting Items | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 235 responses total. |
tod
|
|
response 205 of 235:
| 
Mar 11 22:25 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 206 of 235:
|
Mar 11 22:54 UTC 2004 |
Re 197: I do not maintain "that valerie was justified to abuse her staff
capabilities to remove the items because there might have been agreement
by grexers that it would be OK to remove such items."
I *have* argued that it was NOT abuse. I *have* argued that removing
the baby-diary items was within her rights. No matter *how* accomplished.
Now, let's move on: Can items be removed? If so, under what circumstances?
Does the current proposal accurately describe what should be grex policy
on the removal of items? If yes, vote yes. If no, vote no.
If this proposal fails, we will, in my opinion, need further discussion
to craft a statement that does reflect grex policy on the removal of items.
|
tod
|
|
response 207 of 235:
|
Mar 11 23:21 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 208 of 235:
|
Mar 11 23:24 UTC 2004 |
So vote "yes" on the this proposal.
|
rational
|
|
response 209 of 235:
|
Mar 12 00:56 UTC 2004 |
Re. 196: We CAN know that MOST people who voted DIDN"T read the coop
conference, let alone paricipate in it, because of the logs.
|
salad
|
|
response 210 of 235:
|
Mar 12 03:08 UTC 2004 |
And janc's nifty item.
|
remmers
|
|
response 211 of 235:
|
Mar 14 18:30 UTC 2004 |
The vote on this has ended. I've emailed the treasurer. Once Mark
has certified the voter list, I'll post the results.
|
aruba
|
|
response 212 of 235:
|
Mar 14 19:38 UTC 2004 |
I'll need to check the box tomorrow, so I'll mail John after I do.
|
remmers
|
|
response 213 of 235:
|
Mar 15 17:38 UTC 2004 |
Mark emailed me the updated voter list, so here are the results.
Number of members voting: 40 out of 77 eligible
Yes 21
No 19
The motion passes.
|
atlantic
|
|
response 214 of 235:
|
Mar 15 17:41 UTC 2004 |
Yet no-one has any fucking idea what it does.
|
tod
|
|
response 215 of 235:
|
Mar 15 17:52 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
remmers
|
|
response 216 of 235:
|
Mar 15 18:08 UTC 2004 |
Exact wording is in response #154.
|
tod
|
|
response 217 of 235:
|
Mar 15 18:20 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 218 of 235:
|
Mar 15 18:32 UTC 2004 |
No, I don't think it can be twisted to include parody items. It's not
intended to be so twisted, any way.
|
tod
|
|
response 219 of 235:
|
Mar 15 19:19 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
salad
|
|
response 220 of 235:
|
Mar 15 19:20 UTC 2004 |
uh
?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 221 of 235:
|
Mar 15 19:27 UTC 2004 |
Past experience has been that such duplicate items are caught before
people reply substantively to them. The responses I've seen have been
"This is a duplicate" and "Kill it, please," responses that shouldn't
cause a problem when removed with the offending item. Others would have
to be judged on a case-by-case basis by those involved.
|
tod
|
|
response 222 of 235:
|
Mar 15 19:29 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
salad
|
|
response 223 of 235:
|
Mar 15 19:39 UTC 2004 |
YEs, because they're about a DEAD MUSICIAN. Get it? HAhahaahaha
|
gelinas
|
|
response 224 of 235:
|
Mar 15 19:58 UTC 2004 |
Not after people have responded to them.
|
salad
|
|
response 225 of 235:
|
Mar 15 20:30 UTC 2004 |
It was a joke.
|
keesan
|
|
response 226 of 235:
|
Mar 15 23:58 UTC 2004 |
Why don't you just post once and ask someone to link?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 227 of 235:
|
Mar 16 00:05 UTC 2004 |
(Because that wouldn't test the wording of the just-approved policy.)
|
jp2
|
|
response 228 of 235:
|
Mar 16 00:12 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
atlantic
|
|
response 229 of 235:
|
Mar 16 00:19 UTC 2004 |
This item violates Grex's general principles. It must be deleted now.
|