|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 393 responses total. |
bhoward
|
|
response 224 of 393:
| 
Jan 8 23:27 UTC 2004 |
Grex is about conferencing and to my mind, that includes being open to
experiments in alternative ways of using this media.
I'd like to see this blog conference experiment given a chance to run.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 225 of 393:
|
Jan 9 00:02 UTC 2004 |
Has naftee demanded the removal of this discussion yet?
|
aruba
|
|
response 226 of 393:
|
Jan 9 00:46 UTC 2004 |
I agree with Mary's proposal.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 227 of 393:
|
Jan 9 01:28 UTC 2004 |
Not that I've noticed, Joe.
I think "vandalism" is the wrong word to describe Valerie's actions.
I agree that the result is a huge whole in many discussions. But
"vandalism" implies a malicious intent to cause harm. I don't see that
in Valerie's actions. Harm has, and will, result, but I don't think that
was her intent.
Mary is right that we need to figure out where we go from here. I also
think that she is right that we are not ready to vote on a change to
the policy. However, I think she doesn't go far enough: I think we are
not ready to vote on any policy on this subject at all.
So no, I don't think we are ready to talk about where we go from here.
Too many of us are still reacting from emotion, not from thought.
|
naftee
|
|
response 228 of 393:
|
Jan 9 02:17 UTC 2004 |
re 225 Why, was I supposed to?
|
slynne
|
|
response 229 of 393:
|
Jan 9 02:58 UTC 2004 |
I totally agree with mary and gelinas too.
|
jp2
|
|
response 230 of 393:
|
Jan 9 03:04 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 231 of 393:
|
Jan 9 03:15 UTC 2004 |
I would urge calm too. I don't think that the acts of one stressed-out
root should either establish a new policy or require policies to prevent a
repeat. (I'd suggest preserving the most recent set of backups in order
to maintain options, however.)
Re #228: If enough people were claiming that Valerie had set a precedent,
it's be worth doing. At this point, I think whoever the coop
FWs are would just tell you to piss off. That's the appropriate
response, so don't bother.
|
jlamb
|
|
response 232 of 393:
|
Jan 9 03:28 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
naftee
|
|
response 233 of 393:
|
Jan 9 05:14 UTC 2004 |
re 231 She didn't claim to be stressed-out!
re 230 Kiss my ass, bucko. It's hairier than yours.
|
janc
|
|
response 234 of 393:
|
Jan 9 06:27 UTC 2004 |
I don't plan to take a large role in this discussion. I'm obviously
very biased on aspects of it. And there is a fairly broad range of
censorship policies that we could have that would be OK with me.
Various points I think I should comment on:
- No defacto new policy has been established. All these actions were
taken by one staff member who is now off staff. I don't think any
other staff member would have done the same.
- When I heard that Jep had requested that his divorce item be
removed, I didn't know what to think. I felt his that his desire
to have them deleted deserved respect, but Grex had no policy in
place to by which this could be done. I felt that it was an issue
that needed to be discussed in public. However, if the issue
was raised for public discussion, I knew that two dozen people would
immediately download copies of Jep's item and post it everywhere
they could, making the whole discussion moot.
In an attempt to resolve this dilemma, I sent mail to all board and
staff members suggesting that Jep's items be *temporarily* deleted
before starting a public discussion on the issue. In this way the
full Grex community could evaluate the request on it's merit,
without the discussion becoming instantly moot the moment it was
begun.
Several staff/board members thought this was a sensible plan,
especially since these were not active items - if we didn't tell
people that they had been deleted, then probably nobody would
notice for months.
Other staff/board people rejected the idea of even a temporary
deletion very strongly.
Before the discussion of this issue got very far, Valerie deleted
the items, in full knowledge that the board had not agree to either
a permanent nor a temporary deletion. I had no idea that she was
even thinking about doing this until after it had been done. My
expectation was that I'd have to pursue an argument in baff email
in hopes of winning a consensus of board to agree to a temporary
deletion. My guess is that a majority could have been achieved on
that point, though it would have taken time.
So, while I thought Jep's item should be deleted at least for long
enough to allow general discussion (and, in my personal opinion,
forever), I was fairly confident that that could be achieved "within
the system".
- No, Valerie didn't ask me for the cfadm password. I don't know the
cfadm password. If I ever knew it, I forgot it long ago. I also
routinely forget the root password. In the past I solved this
problem by asking Valerie for it, since she used it much more
frequently than I did, and has a much better memory. I'll need to
find a different strategy in the future.
- Staff should probably have a staff meeting soon. Probably not at
my house this time.
|
janc
|
|
response 235 of 393:
|
Jan 9 06:36 UTC 2004 |
Oh yeah, I'm completely opposed to any policy that says the item author
can always kill an item with responses from others in it.
That Valerie and Jep were the ones who started these items is pretty
much incidental. The thing that distinguishes those items is that they
were the effective leaders of the discussions and the primary subjects
of the discussion. The fact that they entered the original item is the
very least part of what made the items "theirs".
If we were to make a policy enabling such deletions (and I'm not at all
sure that I think we should), then it would have to be something more
complex - having some kind of board of review that would decide each
case on a case-by-case merit. I think it's an icky concept, but it's
about the only sane way it could be handled.
|
jep
|
|
response 236 of 393:
|
Jan 9 11:55 UTC 2004 |
Once I requested that my items be deleted, they became a time bomb and
a source of greater anxiety for me. There must be 12-15 people on the
baff e-mail list. That's a lot of people for keeping a secret,
especially on a system which is as open as Grex. There are
discussions all over Grex as a result of Valerie's items being
deleted. How long until someone slipped and said "valerie and jep",
and people started thinking about what that means? How long until
someone made a moral decision that the items shouldn't be deleted, and
so they'd just go ahead and mention them and make it impossible to
ever delete them? How long until it occurred to someone to archive
all the controversial items, just in case -- and thought of my items?
I'm still hoping no one on that list made a copy for themself before
the items got deleted.
It seemed to me that, if it became known publicly what I had
requested, then those items could come back as an active discussion
again, with excerpts posted around, and who knows what all else. I
really didn't want that, obviously.
When I found out the baff discussion was taking place, I pressed for
the items to be deleted right away. It took two days to delete my
items as it was. I wasn't prepared to wait for two weeks or two
months. I appealed strongly to Valerie. I told her (and the rest of
the list) that it didn't take a discussion when she wanted her items
deleted; it shouldn't for me, either. That appeal, as it turned out,
worked. Under the highly unusual circumstances, I think she did what
she had to do.
I'm not sure how to set a policy on such deletions, either. It sure
seems to me my items were a good candidate for being deleted, and
worthy of an exception even if it's specifically against system
policy. Valerie felt her items merited an exception (or that she was
actually staying within system policy; I guess I'm unclear on what she
thought). The possibility now exists for other exceptions. I don't
think it's reasonable to say, "Okay on deleting valerie and jep's
items, but no other items can ever be deleted".
|
naftee
|
|
response 237 of 393:
|
Jan 9 13:11 UTC 2004 |
jep: Did you try retiring them?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 238 of 393:
|
Jan 9 13:59 UTC 2004 |
I think she thought she was within the limits when she deleted her items.
I think she thought she was beyond the limits when she deleted your items.
Recently, someone mentioned having copied the entirety of /bbs to their
local disk, for ease of off-line reading. Last night, in party, someone
said they were in the process of copying off the entirety of /bbs to
their local disk so that they, at least, would have a "complete" archive.
I don't know if copying /bbs will include retired items. However, it
is very clear to me that the genie is out of the bottle and is NOT going
back into it. Further deletions will serve no useful purpose.
I do not know exactly how many people are on the 'staff' list; only
seven are on the 'board' list, and at least one of them is also on the
'staff' list.
jep, I don't know that your follow-up plea went to the board. I know
that I tried at last three times to bounce it to the board, but I never
received a copy of those bounces. It was addressed to Valerie, with a
carbon-copy to the staff.
When staff first request, I asked for consensus because, although I thought
your items could and should be deleted, it was clear to me that others
disagreed. Staff should not act unilaterally. One staff member replied
almost immediately, in favour of deleting your items. Another replied
within eight hours (given the hour of my request, a reasonable delay),
opposing the deletion.
The community of grex is divided on this issue. The staff is divided
on this issue. The board is divided on this issue. No rapid decision
is possible.
The losses of the past week, both of text and people, are regrettable.
I think we are learning from them.
I am going to take the liberty of quoting from your plea:
"Additionally, I feel strongly that, since you [Valerie] were allowed to
delete your items, I should be allowed to have mine deleted."
She was not "allowed" to delete her items. No one who had read the
discussions from Monday to Wednesday, when your message was sent, could
reasonably conclude that she had any permission to act as she did. I think,
knowing the harm she had suffered, and recognising the very similar harm
you could suffer, she acted in the only way she ethically could.
Note well: I can consider her actions ethical, even though they are not
actions I, myself, would have taken. I also consider my *in*action in
this case ethical.
|
jp2
|
|
response 239 of 393:
|
Jan 9 14:11 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
naftee
|
|
response 240 of 393:
|
Jan 9 14:35 UTC 2004 |
Some users are more equal than others, jp2.
|
kip
|
|
response 241 of 393:
|
Jan 9 14:40 UTC 2004 |
Here's an answer for you then. I, as just one member of staff, am opposed
to deleting item 39 in the co-op 13 conference because it involved a policy
discussion.
This is my personal opinion and is open to change with appropriate discussion.
|
jep
|
|
response 242 of 393:
|
Jan 9 14:54 UTC 2004 |
Yes, Jamie; there is a debate going on about the appropriateness of
fulfilling such requests.
re resp:238: You have my permission to post anything I wrote in any of
my messages which reached staff regarding this issue.
Joe, there are a lot of ways to interpret what happened this week. I
interpreted Valerie's actions in a way that would allow me to call for
my items to be deleted, too.
I regret some of the policy implications which this may have had. I
knew of those implications when I did what I did, and also I brought
them up here before I made my request.
I don't regret getting my items deleted. I'll be very vehemently
opposed to any possibility that they may be restored.
I don't think the staff, or the Board, or myself, have done anything
unethical.
|
jp2
|
|
response 243 of 393:
|
Jan 9 15:00 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 244 of 393:
|
Jan 9 15:23 UTC 2004 |
I'm surprised she didn't leave before...this is how grex operates.
Something goes down and everyone immediately goes into attack mode.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 245 of 393:
|
Jan 9 15:49 UTC 2004 |
I asked that my items be removed, and the response I got from party
was that I needed to find a staff member who was willing to lose their
staff position to delete them for me.
It is most unfair that jep is allowed to use the "but Valerie did it"
argument, and the rest of us have to have it debated. I guess Valerie
just went ahead and deleted them, because a)Having done something like
that herself (for lesser grounds), she was really in no position to
deny that to another user and b)She was leaving anyways, policy really
didn't matter to her, at that point.
I believe that jep did have a more legitimate reason to delete his
items, as compared to Valerie, though I'm sure she thinks otherwise.
Likewise, at least a few people will feel that they have valid reasons
to have their items deleted. Hell, I told all of grex, I was
overweight. I want to erase that from the system. Where exactly are we
going to draw the line on what a legitimate reason is to delete an
item.
Or we have to live with the response "You missed the bus. Should have
got Valerie to do it before she left. Or get another staffer who
doesn't mind being kicked off of staff".
Basically it's true, some members are more equal than others.
|
other
|
|
response 246 of 393:
|
Jan 9 16:08 UTC 2004 |
You are smart enough to know that your conclusion does not follow
from your premise.
|
flem
|
|
response 247 of 393:
|
Jan 9 16:10 UTC 2004 |
I stand behind my use of the term vandalism. I fail to see how this
situation is any different than if polytarp had hacked into grex and
deleted the items in question.
Jep, I consider you a vandal, too, just as much as if you had begged
polytarp to hack into grex and delete the items.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 248 of 393:
|
Jan 9 16:18 UTC 2004 |
The last statement I made was not a conclusion. You're right, it
doesn't follow from the premise, or the analysis.
It's what I believe.
|