|
Grex > Coop9 > #27: Motion: To allow anonymous reading via Backtalk | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 624 responses total. |
dang
|
|
response 235 of 624:
| 
Jan 5 16:51 UTC 1997 |
System load wise, given our current setup, yes, frankly. Any drastic increase
in system useage at this point would be a disaster. Case in point, mail
storms. We may have to, regardless of this proposal, start dealing with "web"
storms. Certainly if we get indexed by a webcrawler.
Now, that's not really the point here, as we've always has system load
difficulties. The question is, is the increased system load worth it?
|
kerouac
|
|
response 236 of 624:
|
Jan 5 20:06 UTC 1997 |
#338....Jenna, that interpretation of national cpyright law was what I was
referring to. If grex suddenly chanegs mode of access and distributes
material in new ways that the poster of said material could not have been
aware of when he/she made the contribution, there is a question of whethe
that would violate the law. Someone who posted a poem three years ago
implied permission for grex to distribute it to anyone who dialed in. Two
years ago and it was implied permission to also share it with those who
telnetted in.
But permission cannot be assumed when the paramaters of that permission
changes. That is why I was saing it would be safer if notice was given of
a change to allow anonymous reading through the web and posters of old
material can remove their material and in cases of posters who are no
longer active, confs should in some cases be re-started (poetry certainly
for one)
As a side note, since I wasnt obviously around at the time, how many
current users threatened to leave Grex if Grex went on the 'net and became
telnet accessible? How any users actually left. I really think there is
a lot of bluffing going on around here. It is not nearly that easy to
give up something you've been doing everyday for years. Most people cant
quit drinking cold turkey, I doubt robh and others could quit grexing cold
turkey either.
|
scg
|
|
response 237 of 624:
|
Jan 5 20:19 UTC 1997 |
I think the argument is that if we're going to be overloaded, it would be
better to be overloaded by conferencers than to be overloaded with mail users.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 238 of 624:
|
Jan 5 20:28 UTC 1997 |
I really dont think this issue is that devisive. Based on comments here
I think the Board would approve anaonymous reads by maybe 5-2 (with janceither
opposed or abstaining.) The only board member strongly objecting seems to
be robh.
The point is the consensus is there and always has been.
It is just the opposing voices have been louder and more threatening.
|
robh
|
|
response 239 of 624:
|
Jan 5 21:11 UTC 1997 |
Re 236 - Nobody thought I could quit Agora cold turkey, either.
Watch me.
|
robh
|
|
response 240 of 624:
|
Jan 5 21:13 UTC 1997 |
But I do think this should be discussed at the next Board meeting,
if there isn't going to be a membership vote held.
|
jenna
|
|
response 241 of 624:
|
Jan 6 00:07 UTC 1997 |
Alright, here;'s a case for why poetry shouldn;'t be openeing
(opened)
1.) It contains sensitive materials, works of art, some of which are
tenuously shared by participants.
2.) It has a writer's circle feeling, a group of people who've chosen
to make themselves a part of it read, respond and enter in varying amounts.
We have regulars, we have in our minds a picture of about who we expect to
read and or respond to our pieces.
3.) Of all the places where copyright issues will come up, this will
be a hotspot.
We have poems posted years ago, the authors of whichcould not be aware
would soeday be offered up to the Web.
4) Most of the people who have responded to the item discussing this
have been very against it and threatened to leave the conference
and delte their items if it is opened. I don't want to loose 1/2 the
fairly active people in the poetry conference.
If you want to open the conferences for the good of Grex, don't open
Poetry. If Grex is a community, who makes up the community? We do.
We all do, and it seems a majority of the poetry community wyu\\ould rather
people found their way in the old fashioned way.
|
arthurp
|
|
response 242 of 624:
|
Jan 6 03:57 UTC 1997 |
In reference to the system load issue. Grex was crippled to the point of
staff censoring material until I could be contacted. The largest that load
got was 5 Meg per 24 hour period. That isn't really all that much data, but
it killed the link. I think that the increase in uncontrollable data flow
generated by web access could drastically affect grex. I was really worried
about this when backtalk came about, but I hadn't thought about the queueing
flow *compared to picospan queueing*. If I haven't lost you by this point,
I'm saying that I am pretty concerned about the potential load increase that
links 'out there' could lead to. I'm slowly being swayed by (Marcus in
particular) the carefully done technical and logically constructed behavioral
arguments. I'm not sure if I would abstain on this or vote against the open
policy. The issues have become so clouded. As generous as I want to be, I
can't ignore the practical side. (Someone will probably slip in).
|
raven
|
|
response 243 of 624:
|
Jan 6 04:16 UTC 1997 |
As a co-fw of three confs here (video, music & cyberpunk) I have to say
that intended audiences for conferences *do* vary and that some
conferences should be open to anonymous reading and some shouldn't.
Conferences I can think of that would be OK to have anonymous reading,
Agora, Intro, Valerie mentioned the Cooking conf I believe, Rane mentioned
the Environment conf, I would be interested in having Video and Music
being accesible to anonymous reading. Conferences that probably
*shouldn't* be open to anonymous reading SexualityII, Poetry, Recovery,
Cyberpunk are ones I can think of offhand, there are probably other confs
that I don't know of that should only reamin accesible to users &
members. The only fair way to determine whether a conference should be
opened to anonymous access is for the fw to start an item in the conf
discussing anonymous acess of that conference. If we had several
conferences open for anonmous access then we could give web surfers a good
feel of what Grex is about *without* endangering the feeling of community
& trust that is necessary in certain conferences such as Poetry,
Sexuality, etc. Perhaps the fundamental issue here is that some
confererces are public forums such as Agora or World, in these
conferences *ideas* are discussed abstractly with little emotional input,
other confernces such as Sexuality or Poetry are communities where people
discuss their feelings and make themselves vulverable. In those
conferences where people make themselves vulnerable I can understand the
objection to having "faceless" people read the conference with no
acountability and with no opportunity for them to respond.
I like the idea of making Grex more accessible to people on the web,
however, I think this should be done in such a way that it doesn't destroy
the sense of community in confernces where that is an important feature of
the confernce.
As for addational load on Grex from increased usage this seems like an
important issue, however, I'm no techie so I'll defer to the techies on
that one.
|
raven
|
|
response 244 of 624:
|
Jan 6 04:18 UTC 1997 |
242 sliped in...
|
arthurp
|
|
response 245 of 624:
|
Jan 6 04:26 UTC 1997 |
Oh, and I don't see much use in a compromise in case you didn't infer that
from my last resp.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 246 of 624:
|
Jan 6 05:29 UTC 1997 |
I'm puzzled by the way the "some open, some not" scenario might work. I have
no problem with the PFC conference being totally open, but what happens to
an item in a non-open conference that gets linked to an open conference? Does
the fw of the non-open conferece give permission to link? the author of the
item? total concesus amoung respondents? Or could one respondent say, "Not
my posting!" and keep the link from happening?
|
phenix
|
|
response 247 of 624:
|
Jan 6 06:33 UTC 1997 |
ok ok ok ok, whoooaaa.
why is it not ok for people to read sexuality or poetry?
poetyr as jenna said is a "writers group"
<srhug>
i still say if you post it to the net, you post it to the world.
and i'm sorry but 241 sounds like COMPLEATE cliqueshness to me.
if you wnat to post to an "audiance" join a mailing list, that's what they rae
there for. i still think the main problem is the technicall issue, and grex
jsut can't handle it.
|
scg
|
|
response 248 of 624:
|
Jan 6 09:11 UTC 1997 |
I disagree with the "Grex just can't handle it" part. Grex will soon be on
faster hardsare, and hopefully on a faster Internet connection. It's a
matter of whether we want our extra capacity taken by conferencing or mail
use.
Also, I think people are grossly overstating the effect this will have on
Grex's resources. Yeah, a few people who stumble across our web pages will
now be able to read stuf fin tthe conferences. Hopefully they'll like what
they see, and will decide to create an account and start participating. The
way this is designed, the conferences would not be indexed by search engines,
so the sorts of floods that I think were first brought up by Marcus wouldnt'
be likely to happen.
I've asked this question before, but I haven't seen an answer to it. Why
should people who stumble across Grex on the web automatically know, without
seeing what's going on here, if Grex is worth their time? Wouldn't it help
people decide whether or not to create an account if they could know what Grex
is first? Why would allowing people to know what Grex is before wasting hteir
time and our time by creating an account be a bad thing?
|
mdw
|
|
response 249 of 624:
|
Jan 6 10:47 UTC 1997 |
It's not a yes/no grex can handle it/grex can't handle it problem. It's
different shades of grey, or really, different colors (is blue darker
than red, or yellow?, &etc.) People have previously identified system
performance as an issue, and the pty count has generated considerable
controvery on this score, as has party. Web based conferencing is
essentially like not having pty limits. Anonymous web reading could
have the same effect as "people reading party" so far as the network
link goes. And if you want web based reading to attract users, what's
wrong with letting search engines explore grex, to attract more users?
ISDN could be faster than 28.8K PPP, but not by *that* much. We
certainly don't have either ISDN or the 6xx today. If we want to make a
*serious* effort to appeal to the mass-market web user, then we had
definitely better plan on a much more ambitious upgrade to our
infrastructure.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 250 of 624:
|
Jan 6 16:02 UTC 1997 |
BTW, I think that if/when this comes to a board vote, the other board
members should request Janc and SRW to abstain.
They are the authors of backtalk, and as this directly relates to
that program, they have a conflict of interest. Whether they vote for
or against anonymous reading, being two of seven board votes they
could decide the issue. Since they stand to benefit longterm from
proper use and publicity of Backtalk, anyone who doesnt like the
outcome could accuse them of voting based on the interests of the software's
future and not grex's. Idont think they would personally, since they
seem to disagree on the issue as far as I can tell, but not everyone has
read this item or would figure that out.
It is just better for appearances sake if the4y abstain.
|
robh
|
|
response 251 of 624:
|
Jan 6 16:48 UTC 1997 |
I have no problem with srw abstaining, since he's no longer a
Board member. >8)
OTOH, I certainly think janc should have a say in how his program
is used.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 252 of 624:
|
Jan 6 16:57 UTC 1997 |
oops, I forgot SRW's term is up. I stillthink Jan should abstain
We dont let the accused sit on the jury in their own trials, and shouldnt
let authors of programs decide votes on usage andimplementation. Why?
Because people with a vested interest one way or the other are not
objective, and if Jan thinks that anonymous reads will negatively impact
Backtalk one way or the other, he cant be objective either. He has
a vested interest in Backtalk's future and should therefore abstain from
any votes regarding Backtalk's usage.
|
remmers
|
|
response 253 of 624:
|
Jan 6 17:01 UTC 1997 |
I hope that the original plan is followed and the issue put to
a member vote.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 254 of 624:
|
Jan 6 17:12 UTC 1997 |
A board vote is really symbolic at this point, since it is certain that
anonymous reading willbe approved and robh will then call for a member
vote.
Lets just have the board vote on rcurl's suggestion of adopting anonymous
reads for a 90 day trial period. After 90 days, the issue of making it
permanent canbe put to a member vote. The trial period can be announced
ahead of time so anyone can take down any of their items. Nothing is lost
by trying it on a trial basis.
|
janc
|
|
response 255 of 624:
|
Jan 6 17:47 UTC 1997 |
I don't really know if I'd abstain if this came to a board vote. I'm not sure
that there is a clear conflict of interest here. I don't stand to profit
either way. I don't see how anyone could claim that I oppose turning on
anonymous reading because I wrote Backtalk. Of course, if we finally decide
to turn on read access for unregistered users, I'll be in the interesting
position of implementing a policy I don't fully agree with. I think I'd
rather see this decided by member vote than a board vote.
|
raven
|
|
response 256 of 624:
|
Jan 6 18:37 UTC 1997 |
Is anyone willing to address the substantive issues I brought up in 243?
I think this compramise addresses the needs of people who see some confernces
as being a community that they don't want read anonymously while opening
up perhaps the majority of conferences to anonymous access.
If people would agree to this compramise and frankly I think it's the best
compramise we can get, then that just leaves the technical issue to be
addressed. Perhaps we should hold off on a vote untill we get the
hardware upgrade & better inter connectivity?
|
raven
|
|
response 257 of 624:
|
Jan 6 19:16 UTC 1997 |
To make this a little more concrete I scanned the list of confernces and
came up with a list of 15 conferences where personel issues are discussed
where people might be uncomfortable with anonoymous reads. They are:
Poetry, Writing, Scruples, Cyberpunk, Synthesis, GLB, Homme, Femme,
Oathbound, Recovery, Sexuality, Inbetween, Cflirt, and Smalls. This is
out of a total of 92 (by my count) conferences on Grex. By my calculation
that means that only 16% of confernences on Grex contain material where
anonymous reads might be a problem. Ofcourse to get exact numbers we
would have to have discussions within each conference to see how
participants feel about their responses being read anonymously. Rcurl has
already started this discussion in the environment conf that he co-fws.
I am in favor of turning on anonymous reads for those confernces where it
is ideas and not feelings that are discussed. Some one puts a good
recipe in the cooking conf and it gets linked to some ones web page,
fantastic Grex is providing a service to the web community.
I am not in favor of anonymous reads for confernces like sexuality and
poetry where there is a community feel and people are revealing personel
information about themselves. If someone wants to particpate in the
poetry conf they can run newuser, it's simple and it makes them part of
the Grex community. This will also give people a little incentive to run
newuser after doing an anonymous read. They might think well I enjoyed
the intellectual stimulation in the world conf but I'd really like to see
that sexuality conf I guess I'll run newuser so I can see it, and
participate in it.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 258 of 624:
|
Jan 6 20:10 UTC 1997 |
It's sounding to me like we might have a workable compromise here: Have the
participants of each individual conference decide if they want the conference
to be open to anonymous reading on the web.
Jan: Is this a change you could and would be willing to make to Backtalk?
Maybe add a fair witness command so the fw can control whether the conf is
anonymously web readable, based on what the users think?
Robh/Jenna/Brighn/etc: Is this something you think you could live with?
|
chelsea
|
|
response 259 of 624:
|
Jan 6 20:29 UTC 1997 |
I'd be happy to sponsor the membership vote if rcurl
would come up with the appropriate language for the
policy. I think he feels about the same way I do
about this and his draft would probably work a lot
better than anything I could come up with at this point.
But I too think a membership vote is the best way
to go.
|