response 238 of 424:

Jan 22 14:07 UTC 2004

Can we vote whether to restore jep's items including his responses (which he
might be given time to scribble first) or without his responses or without
his responses and without the responses of anyone else who agrees not to have
their responses restored?  

response 240 of 424:

Jan 22 14:48 UTC 2004

I don't think that kind of fine-tuning is necessary.  Should this
pass, and assuming that the items can be recovered in raw Picospan
format, I'll volunteer to do the item restoration, and will honor
anyone's request to have their own responses scribbled before the
items are returned to public view.

<donning voteadm hat...>

Proposal wording that appears in the vote program should be simply
a statement of the proposed policy and not include the rationale.
In other words, proposers don't get to advocate their proposal
while the voter is in the voting booth.  This has been past
practice, and I think that it is a reasonable requirement.

The vote program text always references the associated discussion
item and recommends that people read it before voting.  That's
where arguments for and against belong.

</hat>

response 242 of 424:

Jan 22 18:24 UTC 2004

re resp:228: If Jamie's proposal fails, the users have not directed an 
action in any way with regard to Valerie's items in the femme 
conference.  The staff will be as free as they are now about what to 
do.  If his and mine both fail, they're also free to do what they wish 
with regard to mine.  The users won't have decided anything.

If his passes and mine passes, Valerie's items will have to be 
restored, but it's not clear what happens to mine, because the users 
will have spoken ambiguously.

If his passes, and mine fails, then all of the items get restored.  
That's the only case where all is clear with regard to the user's 
decisions on these items.

If his fails and mine passes, my items stay deleted, but there's been 
no decision to do anything about valerie's items

75 passes, 76 passes -- valerie's items are restored, jep's ???
75 fails, 76 passes -- jep's items stay deleted, valerie's ???
75 passes, 76 fails -- all of the items get restored
75 fails, 76 fails -- jep's items ???, valerie's items ???

I don't think you can confidently state anything beyond that.  For 
items where the users haven't made a decision, the staff could make 
them available on M,W,F,Su each week if they agreed among themselves 
that that's what's needed; there's no (new) policy and so there will 
still be uncertainty.

response 246 of 424:

Jan 22 23:20 UTC 2004

I think 'erased' would also work, since it's the name of the analogous 
function in Backtalk.  It's also probably clearer for people who don't 
use Picospan.

response 250 of 424:

Jan 23 01:56 UTC 2004

that is forcing staff to do all the scribbling of jep and valerie's items.
wouldn't they have to be logged on as "valerie" to scribble valerie's items?
I note that when I posted an item from mnet on grex in an agora item where
we were discussing whether user's owned their own words, and it was decided
to remove that post, that marcus (who took the action) did not scribble it,
he went in and edited the post and put xxx's through everything.  Can staff
actually "scribble" a post of another user without being logged on as that
user?  If staff would have to use root and edit each individual post and take
out the words one by one, that would take a lot of time.  Why pass such a
proposal unless its clear that somebody on staff is willing to volunteer to
take the time to do all that work?

response 252 of 424:

Jan 23 03:34 UTC 2004

And John Remmers has volunteered to do the grunt work.

response 254 of 424:

Jan 23 15:15 UTC 2004

Please consider removing all but what was part three.  That
last is more editorial comment and doesn't belong in the
motion.

response 256 of 424:

Jan 23 15:53 UTC 2004

I'd like to thank naftee for brining this matter to our attention.

response 258 of 424:

Jan 23 19:07 UTC 2004

Hi, this is your friendly voteadm person again.

The wording in Section 1 of #255 is acceptable, although I don't
think Section 2 is necessary and could give a misleading impression.
By default, policies take effect as soon as a passing result is
announced, and staff is always supposed to implement policies as
soon as practical.  Having that language in the proposal suggests
that those things are not the default.  Jamie, are you willing
to take that part out?

It appears that for the first time in Grex history we might be
voting on more than one proposal at the same time.  The current
vote program can handle that okay with a minor amount of
hack-work on my part, but I'm working on a rewrite that will
handle parallel votes with different expiration times gracefully,
and that will automate some things that I currently do by hand.  
I'd like to delay the start of voting until tomorrow (Saturday)
to see if I can get that operational.  If I do, I'll start the
vote using the new program; if not, I'll start it using the old
one.  Hopefully that's acceptable to folks.

response 260 of 424:

Jan 23 19:32 UTC 2004

Thanks for the willingness to be flexible.

Refresh my memory -- was more that one staff member involved in
deleting the items?  The proposal refers to "staff members".

response 262 of 424:

Jan 24 04:25 UTC 2004

I would also like to thank willcome and jp2 for their tireless efforts in
discussing the matter with the users of GreX.