|
Grex > Coop9 > #55: Motion: To allow unregistered reading of all conferences | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 367 responses total. |
ryan1
|
|
response 231 of 367:
| 
Mar 7 01:33 UTC 1997 |
<gasp! the world stops momentarily>
I agree with Richard, there should be a waiting period, so people can
clean things up, or make counter-proposals :)
|
ladymoon
|
|
response 232 of 367:
|
Mar 7 04:31 UTC 1997 |
You know- I don't care which way this vote goes- it's totally and perfectly
INVALID.
The proposal was so poorly defined that the vote winds up being over policy
that affects NOT ONE THING.
I expect that all votes will be thrown out. Anything that will affect the
issue will have to be re-proposed, and allowed another 14 day discussion
period, and all thanks to Mary Remmers not knowing a lick about how to word
policy. Thank you, Mary. You've made my entire week!
|
babozita
|
|
response 233 of 367:
|
Mar 7 04:56 UTC 1997 |
As I've already Istated, I agree with Selena, but know that she will be
ignored.
Ryan and Richard, it will take so much more than two weeks for most of us to
clean thins up, it's silly. Two weeks for fair warning is wise, though; I just
disagree with the motivation for it.
Arnold, yes, I , too, have seen the light. There are brigands on Grex, some
of whom I once trusted. The presence of brigands, I ultimately decided, is
no reason to deny the rest of the unwashed masses the privelege of my
sagacious elocutions.
"And if I don't know who to love, I''ll love them all.
And if I don't know who to trust, I'll trust them all.
And if I don't know who to kill, no sucide -- I'm already dead."
-- Live, i forget which song (so don't quote it again!)
I made a msitake about who is trustworthy and who isn't.
I've since changed my perspective.
|
jenna
|
|
response 234 of 367:
|
Mar 7 05:50 UTC 1997 |
I also agree with Selena and Brighn. The thing is kinda
worded ambiguosly.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 235 of 367:
|
Mar 7 07:58 UTC 1997 |
But what will result is very clear: conferences will be readable from the
web without users having grex accounts.
|
remmers
|
|
response 236 of 367:
|
Mar 7 12:26 UTC 1997 |
Right. And I think it's clear to everybody reading this
discussion that that is the intent.
|
tsty
|
|
response 237 of 367:
|
Mar 7 13:46 UTC 1997 |
is taht what the proposal says, in vote? (#235)
|
babozita
|
|
response 238 of 367:
|
Mar 7 16:48 UTC 1997 |
#236> Intent? OIC. Rules shouldn't be based on intent. They should *say* what
they mean to say. Although, frankly, I'm glad the web isn't named in the vote,
since this allows anon telnet access too... which, if I understand Mary right,
she isn't averse to (nor am I, since fair's fair)
My problem with the wording is that it doesnt mention how its intent would
be ccom;lished, and therefore must be interpreted as broadly as possible:
anybody who can figure out how to access grex'smaterials, regardless of route,
can so access it. I'd've felt more comfortable if there were SOME limitations
on it.
BUT BUT BUT allof this is moot, folks. There are rules of order here, and if
y'all were uncomfortbale with the wording of the actual motion, y'all
should've piped up before the official vote was announced. It's too late now.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 239 of 367:
|
Mar 7 18:50 UTC 1997 |
Ah ha! That's the problem! There are *NO* rules of order here. Whenever
the notion comes up (usually from me) to adopt some rules of order, it gets
pooh-poohed by many - it is not the "grex" way, they say. So, you see, this
motion is right in the grex manner - isn't that appropriate?
|
jenna
|
|
response 240 of 367:
|
Mar 7 23:23 UTC 1997 |
I think it's a good idea, rane. i think one of the first ones should be
a limit of time between when an issue is voted on and when
it can be voted on again (regardless of outcome)
|
mary
|
|
response 241 of 367:
|
Mar 8 00:17 UTC 1997 |
Not linking this policy to Web access, Newuser, or Picospan was
deliberate. In fact, not long ago there was a discussion here on coding
"guest" access which would have allowed unregistered read access through
telent. There was none of this "needing to know who is reading my poetry"
response to that issue, if I remember correctly. But alas, the code never
got written. Maybe someday it will be. This vote, as worded, would allow
unregistered reading though Web or telnet, and would provide for a
consistent policy.
Newuser and Picospan might not always be our primary software - so why
mention it unnecessarily in our policies?
As to the concern that the word "unregistered" might not be understood...
I did a little grep on items #27 and #55 looking for how many times the
word "unregistered" had been used in the discussion. In item #27 it was
used 224 times. In this item it was used 53 times. I don't think the
term is vague or pulled out of thin air. Anyone who has read even a
little bit about this issue would be familiar with what it means.
|
dpc
|
|
response 242 of 367:
|
Mar 8 00:26 UTC 1997 |
Curious. All of the discussion of this proposal, and Valerie's ill-fated
proposal, was about allowing unregistered access *from the Web.* Now
the author says the broad wording was intended to allow unregistered
access *by any method.*
I disagree. The intent of the wording may be inferred from the
terms of the prior discussion. If adopted, I think the policy will
only authorize unregistered reading from the Web.
|
ladymoon
|
|
response 243 of 367:
|
Mar 8 00:36 UTC 1997 |
But, david, it won't be limited to that- you see, Mary wants her cake and to
eat it too.
She wants the intent of the term "unregistered" to have meaning beased on this
discussion, but the fact that this discuccion has only been about web-access
shouldn't limit her wording she says.
You can't have it both ways, Mary. Either the discussion in here defines
things for the proposal, or it doesn't. Learn to actually write clearly first!
|
mary
|
|
response 244 of 367:
|
Mar 8 00:51 UTC 1997 |
Unregistered, throughout the discussion, has been used to mean not needing
to go through Newuser and select a personal login and password. I see
nothing unclear about what the word "unregistered" means or what it
matters how you get connected to the machine. What we are voting on is
whether unregistered users should be allowed read access to Grex
conferences.
|
valerie
|
|
response 245 of 367:
|
Mar 8 02:13 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
valerie
|
|
response 246 of 367:
|
Mar 8 02:16 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 247 of 367:
|
Mar 8 07:53 UTC 1997 |
No one is going to read the proposal 3 years from now. However, Valerie's
concern would be resolved by grex keeping a record of the consolidatyed
*acts* of the board and membership, like most corporations do, rather than
just having them scattered all over minutes and old coops. (However, that
would look like good organization, so it isn't likely to happen... ;->)
|
remmers
|
|
response 248 of 367:
|
Mar 8 12:02 UTC 1997 |
It will happen if somebody volunteers to do it. It will not
happen if people just grouse about it not happening but nobody
volunteers to do the work.
|
mary
|
|
response 249 of 367:
|
Mar 8 13:26 UTC 1997 |
The membership votes are already documentented pretty well.
Check out /usr/local/grexdoc/archives/prvotes.
|
mary
|
|
response 250 of 367:
|
Mar 8 13:29 UTC 1997 |
s/prvote/prvotes
|
valerie
|
|
response 251 of 367:
|
Mar 8 13:47 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
babozita
|
|
response 252 of 367:
|
Mar 8 16:41 UTC 1997 |
MAry is exemplifying well here why I've grown to distrust her so.
She's a political snake, the worst kind.
Mary, *I* know your intentions well enough in drafting the proposal, but it's
clear that other people failed to notice that mention of the Web was absent,
and assumed its presence. Now you're saying it's their fault for not noticing?
I recall some 100 or so posts into a discussion of unregistered users, it
became clear that half the people inthe discussion thought we were talking
about unvalidated users. Don't tell me that people active in a conversation
know what's going on. All right, they should, but don't say "would" (as in
the last line of a few posts back...)
Folks, I think Mary continues to demonstrate that she uses dirty politics and
a softshoe to get her way. Do we not violate her gross violation of netiquette
in posting private mail I had sent her? (Er, 'Do we not remember her...')
That's why I'm torn about this issue. I think the proposal, in the end, is
in the best interest of Grex. But I think that by ratifying it, we're
ratifying dirty pool (Mary's dirty pool).
Unfortunately, I also realizt that many of you feel that not ratifying it is
ratifying my previously extortionist techniaues. But I've stopped. When will
Mary?
|
jenna
|
|
response 253 of 367:
|
Mar 8 16:51 UTC 1997 |
Maybe, Mar
|
dpc
|
|
response 254 of 367:
|
Mar 8 20:19 UTC 1997 |
This mis-statement of the proposal's scope by its author is another good
reason to vote NO. Remember--if you have already voted, you can still
change your vote by running the "vote" program again.
|
ladymoon
|
|
response 255 of 367:
|
Mar 9 01:21 UTC 1997 |
Which I heartily reccommend- if you REALLY believe in open access to
grexreading by people who have never seen the newuser interface, then still
vote no on THIS asininely written proposal, and propose something that says
what YOU wanted it to mean, not this nasty bit of dirty pool by Mrs. Remmers.
Sure, I'd much rather that people who haven't set up a grex account be
excluded from reading the conferences, but at least if that idea is to be
voted against, let it be legitimate, not this piece of trash! At least your
opposition, in both the forms of Valerie's first proposal, and cmcgee's, were
written clearly enough so that there was no WAY to mistake what you were
voting against. Give us the same courtesy, will you?
|