|
Grex > Coop8 > #78: Agenda for the June 26, 1996 board meeting (7:30pm, UM Union food court) | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 94 responses total. |
scott
|
|
response 25 of 94:
| 
Jun 26 22:22 UTC 1996 |
Setting possible policy is on the agenda for tonight. Speaking of which,...
Agenda for 6/24/96 Board Meeting
1. Initial Gavel Pounding - scott < 1 minute
2. Treasurer's Report - aruba 5 minutes
3. 501(c)3 Committee - aruba 5 minutes
4. Computer Rehabilitation Committee - scott 5 minutes
5. Publicity Committee - mta 5 minutes
6. Technical Committee - STeve 20 minutes
10. Newsletter Report - mta 5 minutes
11. Auction Committe - popcorn, robh 5 minutes
12. Grex has to move - all 30 minutes
13. Changing to Centrex service - all 10 minutes
14. People's Food Coop discount - all 10 minutes
15. .yes/.no files policy -all 5 minutes
16. New Business - all ???
20. Final Gavel Pounding - scott < 1 minute
|
tsty
|
|
response 26 of 94:
|
Jun 27 10:46 UTC 1996 |
yo ... wait a sec.... the problem, as described, is that specific,
existing logins are a problem. a .nowrite file solves that problem.
a .yeswrite *creates* a different problem.
can this situation get some air first?
having a .yeswrite automatically excludes *EVERYONE* "except"
teh "chosen few." My opinion is that such a facility is the reverse
of what grex exists for.
if someone desires such an arrogant, elitist system as that they can
create that poison elsewhere themselves.
|
scott
|
|
response 27 of 94:
|
Jun 27 10:57 UTC 1996 |
Well, the Coop item here for .yes/.no files has 170 responses in it. I'd call
that a pretty thorough airing of opinions on the subject.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 28 of 94:
|
Jun 27 15:42 UTC 1996 |
If the argument for having .yes/.no is that people should be able to control
their environment and who they communicate with, why then is that argument not
extended logically to allow for closed confs? If a user can set it up so they
can only receive !tels from their friends, why is it then not allowed for them
to be able to conference with only their friends? After all if a person cannot
harrass with !tels, they can harass through conf postings, driving said person
from the conference in question.
It was my understanding that we dont have closed confs on grex because it runs
counter to the open communication atmosphere that is the essence of this
system. .yes/.no options have the same effect as closed confs..so if you allow
for one you may as well allow for the other right?
Based on what I've read in this discussion, I think .yes should be added for
staff only, so that staffers never have to be cut off from each other because
their perms are off.
|
scott
|
|
response 29 of 94:
|
Jun 27 16:03 UTC 1996 |
We allow for private mail. That is essentially a way to do private
conferencing.
We also allow twit filters in conferences, so harrassement in conferences can
be controlled.
|
robh
|
|
response 30 of 94:
|
Jun 27 16:41 UTC 1996 |
I would *never* support .yeswrite files for staff only.
That's more cliquish than giving it to everyone.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 31 of 94:
|
Jun 27 16:50 UTC 1996 |
rob, is it any more cliquish than supporting closed confs for staff only (if
you think .yeswrite for staff only would be cliquish and bad, you must also
be against the staff conf conf being closed for the same reason)
|
robh
|
|
response 32 of 94:
|
Jun 27 17:34 UTC 1996 |
If it weren't for the sensitive nature of some of the things
we discuss in the Staff conference, then I'd be concerned about
it.
|
jenna
|
|
response 33 of 94:
|
Jun 27 20:06 UTC 1996 |
More than 20 people have thus far bugged me after being asked to stop
tsty.It's been about a 1:1 ratio for logins (though someties i get
hit with 2 or 3 and sometimes none). I am not alone this.
Only about 5 of them have done it multiple times I logged in.
I DO NOT want a file that I have to put a name in every
5 minutes (it's that bad at times during the evening) though
75% of the penames in there will never ntalk me or tel me
or write me again without my express permission (hey...
if i get to know someone i can have a chage of opinion...
it's harassment I'm against). On the other hand, .yeswrite
is the people who I still want to be able to tmesg me
after I've gotten so desperate i turn my chats off.
Other people would of course use the program different, but I would
only turn it on when I was having problems, such as in the evenings;
but there are people I would like to be able to chat me even when
I have my mesgs off. I totally and wholly support either
.yeswrites or both. (aren't those I's cute -- and totally unintentional)
.nowrite IS an enemies list, and most times peole use enemies
list for real jerks AND friends they don't want to talk to
and feelings get hurt <shrug>. .yeswrite is like having your
perms off for whatever reason but being accesible to a few
people.
|
chelsea
|
|
response 34 of 94:
|
Jun 27 23:00 UTC 1996 |
Will a user's actual .yes or .no files be publicly readable?
It would be wonderful if folks had the ability to fine tune
the on/off that is mesg -y -n. It's a tool. It's private.
And for some it's obviously critical to their enjoyment of
Grex. If you don't like it, don't use it. Having it available
will not make social folks who now welcome chats from any and
all into hermits.
The sky is not falling.
|
scott
|
|
response 35 of 94:
|
Jun 27 23:32 UTC 1996 |
I agree with Mary. We have a big toggle switch. We're talking about
replacing it with a knob.
|
srw
|
|
response 36 of 94:
|
Jun 28 03:04 UTC 1996 |
I agree with scott in agreeing with mary.
|
robh
|
|
response 37 of 94:
|
Jun 28 04:08 UTC 1996 |
I agree with srw's agreement with scott's agreement with chelsea.
OK, next!
|
brighn
|
|
response 38 of 94:
|
Jun 28 04:44 UTC 1996 |
I agre with rob's agrfeement with srw's agreement with
scott's agreement with chelsea...
and I think it's hard to type with jenna leaning on me
and threatening to choke me if I don't agree! Halp!
I'm being extorted!
|
ajax
|
|
response 39 of 94:
|
Jun 28 07:18 UTC 1996 |
Re 34, a user's .yes/.no files won't have to be publicly readable.
|
remmers
|
|
response 40 of 94:
|
Jun 28 10:27 UTC 1996 |
Right - the user could choose to make them readable or not, just
like any of their other files.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 41 of 94:
|
Jun 28 14:58 UTC 1996 |
Okay how about a compromise. Why not set it up so when one has perms off or
gets a !write from somebody who is not in a .yes file (or IS ina .no file),
that person gets defaulted into a text screen whre they can type what they
want to type and have it defaulted into the sendee's save files.
This would be like email and allow Jenna or whomever to read the person's
comments whenever. She'd just get "You have a chat message from so and so,
type ..... to read" Something like this makes it more palatable because you
are not totally cutting the other person off, and the person can make his
immediate comments without having to get out of wherever they are to go into
e-mail.
This would make it far less cliquish and make it less likely for people to take
it the wro ng way if they are not in someone's .yes file.
And if someone wants to harass by leaving a lot of chat messages, it can be set
so the prompots that such are there dont appear on screen, other than as a
reminder at initial logon.
|
scott
|
|
response 42 of 94:
|
Jun 28 16:05 UTC 1996 |
Let's see if I can translate that into stuff we might be able to program:
If I send a tel (or whatever) to kerouac, and I am not in kerouac's .yesfile
(assuming kerouac *has* a .yesfile), then I get a "not in yesfile" message,
and can choose to be dropped into a mail collector to create a mail message
for kerouac.
Sounds reasonable to me. I don't know if we *can* do that, though (it might
be a mess to actually program).
|
robh
|
|
response 43 of 94:
|
Jun 28 16:05 UTC 1996 |
kerouac wants a system to be set up such that if someone doesn't
want to accept messages from you, you can instead type in some
text which will be appended to a file that the other person can
read whenever they choose.
We have this implemented already, ker. It's called "e-mail".
|
robh
|
|
response 44 of 94:
|
Jun 28 16:06 UTC 1996 |
#42 slipped in.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 45 of 94:
|
Jun 28 18:13 UTC 1996 |
#43...rob, the problem is that when one gets a "not accepting messges"
prompt, it is easy to assume that the person is not accepting email
either. Plus email is a separate program, it is not linked to !write or
!tel so there is no immediacy. If I !tel someone and get a "not
accepting messages, I dont want to bother loading pine, I just want an
edit screen where I can !write my comments as I wouod have if allowed to
transmit them directly..
"Popcorn is not accepting messages right now, would you like to continue
your message and save it for her? (y/n)"
|
robh
|
|
response 46 of 94:
|
Jun 28 18:31 UTC 1996 |
Not accepting e-mail? Only someone who's deliberately set up
a filter to delete your mail would not get any e-mail you sent.
I can see tying in the write/tel program to ucb-mail (NOT PINE!!!)
to send a quick message to someone who wasn't accepting messages,
but trying to write a brand new program to do it would be silly.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 47 of 94:
|
Jun 28 19:50 UTC 1996 |
I got a tel a little while ago, asking if I was busy. I was, so sent a tel
back asking the user (who I did not know) to send e-mail. I then thought
that that would be a handy automatic option - a response saying "send
mail". (The user has not sent e-mail however - showing the effectiveness
of the idea... ;->).
|
brighn
|
|
response 48 of 94:
|
Jun 28 20:37 UTC 1996 |
Then don't load pine, Richard.
Not in my .yesfile?
Type "m brighn"
Sheesh...
|
scg
|
|
response 49 of 94:
|
Jun 29 07:00 UTC 1996 |
If somebody really doesn't want you writing them, then don't write them. If
you get to a point where nobody is willing to talk to you, you have problems
that forcing them to talk to you isn't going to solve.
|