|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 393 responses total. |
gull
|
|
response 274 of 393:
| 
Jan 9 22:23 UTC 2004 |
While it's possible there are copies out there, I doubt most people
would have found them personally interesting enough to keep. It also
sounds like jep might have squeezed in before this became enough of an
issue for people to start copying whole conferences on general
principle.
|
naftee
|
|
response 275 of 393:
|
Jan 9 23:39 UTC 2004 |
re 244 ACTION mode, not attack mode.
re 247 Yeah, a no-good HACKER<>.
re 249
>valerie's actions were hers alone and not official policy
Yes, and valerie's actions suddenly became temporarily official
policy. Who knows, they may have become permanent, had this
discussion not taken place.
re 253 Thanks. I'm sure there were still people wondering.
re 264 I think her goal was to keep it secret and hope her staff
buddies didn't spill the beans.
re 271 What is your opinion of the "parody" copies on the m-net agora
conference, regarding valerie's baby diary?
re 273 Just try not to hurt her feelings, k? She might resign from
something spontaneously. Go on a mad hacking spree. Who knows?
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 276 of 393:
|
Jan 9 23:50 UTC 2004 |
When were Grex's most recent backups performed, and who has custody of them?
And does Valerie still have physical access to the Grex machine?
|
naftee
|
|
response 277 of 393:
|
Jan 10 00:18 UTC 2004 |
She said she'd turn over her keys.
|
tod
|
|
response 278 of 393:
|
Jan 10 00:38 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
aruba
|
|
response 279 of 393:
|
Jan 10 00:41 UTC 2004 |
Valerie gave her Pumpkin keys to Jan.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 280 of 393:
|
Jan 10 04:46 UTC 2004 |
Seems reasonable.
|
willcome
|
|
response 281 of 393:
|
Jan 10 08:38 UTC 2004 |
Wait till you hear about the bizzarre sexual game under which the exchange
took place, though.
|
void
|
|
response 282 of 393:
|
Jan 10 09:47 UTC 2004 |
IIRC, one of the arguments used in the great censor-log-closing
debate was that the entity Grex does not own anything posted here, and
therefore cannot force authors to continue publishing their material
here if they decide they want it removed. It seems to me that a
corollary of that is that item originators do not own the posts of
others in the items they start, and therefore cannot force those
authors to stop publishing their material here if the authors want it
to remain visible.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 283 of 393:
|
Jan 10 11:59 UTC 2004 |
resp:261 To be honest, I hope you don't get that item deleted, Sapna.
I studied piano for a while myself, but was relating a little more
directly as an beginning/intermediate guitar student at the time.
(Right now my studies are on hold.) I enjoyed the discussion... felt
it inspiring to new music students. I feel deleting the item would be
a loss to the conference. But that is my opinion.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 284 of 393:
|
Jan 10 13:48 UTC 2004 |
I'm sure the paino item would not be of as great loss to the system as teh
baby diaries were or jep's divorce items. They wre definitely items I would
return to if I ever found myself in those situations, and I'm sure many people
related to them. On a much broader sense than the piano diary. Or the fat
diary.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 285 of 393:
|
Jan 10 13:54 UTC 2004 |
While I tend to agree with you, especially about the divorce item, which I
think was one of the best ever and contained some of the best advice and
observations I have ever seen on mnet or grex, lumen's point is valid to
the extent he suggests items have value beyond what a poster may intend or
believe to be the case. As a songwriter, I subscribe to the John
Mellencamp philosophy that songs are like children. At some point they
leave the nest to stand or fall on their own merits. A person's items and
posts are similar in that respect. The issue is not one of ownership but
control. The last few days clearly demonstrate, in my mind anyway, that
certain posters are incredible control freaks.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 286 of 393:
|
Jan 10 14:08 UTC 2004 |
Come on. That's why you parodied her in the first place. It's the most
obvious and provocative trait that comes through in her posts, especially
if you were ever around when someone entered a response that didn't fit what
she wanted people to say. Her item was the Singapore of conferencing.
I have some sympathy for jep, but I would have had more sympathy had he done
it sooner to keep them out of his ex-wife's hands. By now, I'm sure Mary
Remmers or someone has already given her copies, so the only purpose deleting
them served was to annoy everyone else and help Valerie burn more bridges.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 287 of 393:
|
Jan 10 14:28 UTC 2004 |
(Incidentally, I don't think either of those points was jep's intent, but
he did delete them far too late to protect himself from any actual damage
they could cause.)
|
naftee
|
|
response 288 of 393:
|
Jan 10 17:03 UTC 2004 |
[Actually, valerie deleted them. Detail, counsellor!]
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 289 of 393:
|
Jan 10 17:50 UTC 2004 |
[Causation is an interesting subject]
|
janc
|
|
response 290 of 393:
|
Jan 10 18:50 UTC 2004 |
Valerie and I were talking yesterday about how it came about that she
and I had such different ideas about what the rules for item deletion
were. Valerie started the baby diary almost six years ago. Since then,
for various reasons, she has reduced her conference participation until
in the last few years those items were about the only conferencing she
did here. In particular, she was not involved in the coop conference
very much during the big debate about the closing of the censored log.
I think the long discussion surrounding that proposal crystalized Grex's
policy about deletions in the minds of many of us in ways that extended
far beyond the actual proposal. The proposal just said the censored log
is not permitted any more, and clearly implied that it is OK for people
to delete their own past responses. The implications that it is NOT OK
to delete other users responses is not at all clear in the proposal, but
certainly was clear in the discussion. So those of us who were in that
discussion probably have a much sharply focused idea of Grex's deletion
policy than those who weren't. Probably this is an argument that Grex
staffers should all be active participants in Coop. However, it is also
true that with my active participation in discussions this week, my
actual work on Next Grex has ground to a complete halt. So forcing
staffers to be part of these discussions isn't exactly going to improve
their efficiency, and a few would resign from staff rather than have to
involve themselves deeply with periodic frabbles like this.
|
other
|
|
response 291 of 393:
|
Jan 10 18:54 UTC 2004 |
An alternative conclusion might be that policy which is clear should be
stated clearly and that at least one staff member should be charged
with keeping current in Co-op and informing other staff either at
meetings or by email, whichever is most timely, of any effective or
actual changes in policy.
|
janc
|
|
response 292 of 393:
|
Jan 10 18:59 UTC 2004 |
I wonder if it really makes sense to keep everything around forever as
we do. Maybe Grex should just always automatically delete every item
that hasn't had a response for a year.
Yeah, the old items have value. There were, as others have said, some
very intelligent and thoughtful responses to JEP's divorce items, and if
you were going through a divorce, looking back on that might be helpful.
But you know, you could probably get as good advice or better by
starting your own divorce item. Oops, no, I forgot. We all know today
that we would never be so stupid as to do that, especially considering
that our item could never ever be deleted if we had second thoughts
later. So I guess we'd better keep JEP pinned to the wall for future
reference. Discussions of that quality aren't going to happen again.
|
willcome
|
|
response 293 of 393:
|
Jan 10 19:06 UTC 2004 |
You don't think there's any value in preserving Grex's history?
|
janc
|
|
response 294 of 393:
|
Jan 10 19:50 UTC 2004 |
Sometimes it's history, and sometimes it's deadwood, and sometimes it's
historical deadwood.
Eric: It would be hard to make that work. All staff knew what the
conclusion of that discussion was - the closing of the censor log. But
the whole discussion caused a shift and clarification of the Grex
community's outlook on several related issues. Who's going to be
insightful enough to recognize those shifts, figure out who didn't know
about them, and accurately convey the right message to the right people.
I had no idea that Valerie didn't have the same understanding that I
did, and I talk to Valerie much more than I talk to, say, Marcus, and
know her much better.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 295 of 393:
|
Jan 10 19:54 UTC 2004 |
Interesting comments on the "censored" log, Jan. I participated in that
debate, but I didn't come away from it thinking items couldn't be deleted.
Sure, there is a value in preserving Grex's history. But a complete record
of anything ever said on grex is NOT necessary to that preservation.
|
other
|
|
response 296 of 393:
|
Jan 10 20:17 UTC 2004 |
Perhaps an ongoing policy discussion in the Staff conference would be
in order. The idea would be to discuss practical implications of
policy changes, and perceptions of implicit changes could be discussed
and validated.
One of the strengths of Grex is that the policies by which we operate
are not vast and complex, but one of the weaknesses of our system is
that the fluidity of our policy sometimes results in controversial
judgement calls, and over time, resolving those controversies has
become a more difficult and noisome process. So the logical responses
are either to increase the degree to which our policies are clearly
codified, or take steps to insure that there is broad and clear
understanding of those policies by those charged with their
implementation.
|
gull
|
|
response 297 of 393:
|
Jan 10 21:15 UTC 2004 |
Re resp:292: I would oppose that as a general policy. I find a lot of
the old items in conferences like micros and jellyware interesting, and
I'd hate to see them deleted just for the sake of clearing out deadwood.
I think individual fairwitnesses should be free to set policies like
that for their own conferences, though.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 298 of 393:
|
Jan 10 22:01 UTC 2004 |
I think automatically clearing old items is a bad idea. The info conference,
for example has a lot of "old" info that is still useable. In fact, I really
hope valerie can later be convinced to restore her responses in that
conference.
|