|
Grex > Coop9 > #55: Motion: To allow unregistered reading of all conferences | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 367 responses total. |
richard
|
|
response 294 of 367:
| 
Mar 13 16:59 UTC 1997 |
AndValerie saves the day! I felt sure that if she hadnt changedher vote
back, this would have been a tie. I predicted this outcome om the nail:
#106 of 293: by Richard J. Wallner (richard) on Sun, Feb 23, 1997 (18:15):
Mary, Peter, Jeff, John, SCG, and SRW all voted against the previous
proposal
but will vote yes for Mary's. Basede on the previous vote of 16 to 24,
if
noone else changes their mind, the vote would be 21 yes 19 no.
The votes are there.
Grex politics arent that hard to figureout :) I hope Jan and/or SRW can
turn unregistered reading on today. May as well try it out for a while
before voting on thenext proposals. So we'llhaveperspective. Flip the
switch!
|
robh
|
|
response 295 of 367:
|
Mar 13 17:15 UTC 1997 |
"Flip the switch", what an appropriate phrase for it. >8)
|
babozita
|
|
response 296 of 367:
|
Mar 13 18:29 UTC 1997 |
siwtch, bird, they're both nouns
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 297 of 367:
|
Mar 13 18:35 UTC 1997 |
I would hope, that before "flipping the switch", that the designers of
Backtalk wait for the outcome of the currently-in-process compromise. I see
no benefit in offending people unnecessarily by hasty implementation of
something that might last only 15-20 days.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 298 of 367:
|
Mar 13 18:49 UTC 1997 |
Uh....is that a motion? I see no harm in having it on, even if only to
have a couple of weeks of experience with it. It is not hasty to implement
a policy when the policy is adopted. Besides, any chance to gain
experience, rather than just all the theory we have had, is worthwhile.
|
dpc
|
|
response 299 of 367:
|
Mar 13 21:53 UTC 1997 |
I must point out that the vote switches occurred during the improperly-
extended period of voting, confirmed by the switchers. If the vote
had ended when it should have, the motion would have been defeated.
Unbelievable!
|
ryan1
|
|
response 300 of 367:
|
Mar 13 22:09 UTC 1997 |
I declare a mis-vote!
|
richard
|
|
response 301 of 367:
|
Mar 13 22:14 UTC 1997 |
You cant prove who voted when...or how many voters voted yesterday or the day
before. Just because Valerie changed her vote on the last day doesnt mean that
other people didnt vote on the last day as well. I dont see the problem, since
all extending the time period did was give more people time to vote. In any
case this was brought up and there was no objection. End of story.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 302 of 367:
|
Mar 13 22:36 UTC 1997 |
David, if you will read response 30, posted on February 15th, you will see
that my vote changed well withing the proper voting period.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 303 of 367:
|
Mar 13 22:56 UTC 1997 |
[Actually, it was my mind that changed. The proposal wasn't even being voted
on at that point]
|
dpc
|
|
response 304 of 367:
|
Mar 14 01:56 UTC 1997 |
I'm only talking about confirmed late vote-switchers, Colleen.
|
jenna
|
|
response 305 of 367:
|
Mar 14 02:49 UTC 1997 |
will this be implemented before the other motion is voted on?
*is trying to decide when to leave*
|
richard
|
|
response 306 of 367:
|
Mar 14 03:04 UTC 1997 |
#305...yes, there was no period of delay stipulated and staff is obligated
to carry out member or board ordered directives with due diligence3.
|
mary
|
|
response 307 of 367:
|
Mar 14 03:32 UTC 1997 |
I would certainly hope this policy would be implemented without
delay. Then as we go into the next vote we'll have a better
feeling for how it goes. I'm looking forward to any fine-tuning
of this issue to be based more on fact than fear.
Janc and srw, when do you plan to make the switch?
|
srw
|
|
response 308 of 367:
|
Mar 14 05:22 UTC 1997 |
This policy will probably not be implemented without delay. This policy
does not require immediate deployment.
Everything requires a delay. I am in favor of doing this but I am too
friggin busy to get to it for a while. If someone else wants to make the
changes, I will not object.
Also I think it is only fair to allow plenty of time for people to
remove what they don't want to be seen, although I think that the whole
idea of hiding what one has typed into Grex is very silly.
Also I want to say that Kerouac is just plain wrong about me. I voted
for the compromise. I repudiated resp:106, and yet he still quotes it in
resp:294. I voted *FOR* the compromise.
|
srw
|
|
response 309 of 367:
|
Mar 14 05:26 UTC 1997 |
I also think it is totally inappropriate to hang the vote on one
person's back. You don't really know how anyone voted, nor when nor if
they changed their vote. You only know what the claimed. The vote is
officially a secret ballot.
|
mary
|
|
response 310 of 367:
|
Mar 14 11:15 UTC 1997 |
My "without delay" was not at all meant that as a demand
on your time, Steve. It was aimed at the idea that this
action should be delayed until further votes have come
and gone. Experience will help in the decision of what,
if anything, should be done to fine-tune this policy.
If you and janc are too busy to see to it then you are
to busy to see to it and we'll need to be patient.
|
jenna
|
|
response 311 of 367:
|
Mar 14 21:12 UTC 1997 |
I would appreciate some time. It would be curteous. Prove to me you're no
incapable of even that. I'm beginning to wonder.
|
mary
|
|
response 312 of 367:
|
Mar 15 00:58 UTC 1997 |
I don't know where I got the impression, maybe from something
janc entered, that this was simple perm on/off thing in the
software. But it looks like it maybe isn't, Jenna, so there
will be some transition time.
|
srw
|
|
response 313 of 367:
|
Mar 15 03:21 UTC 1997 |
It shouldn't be especially complicated to implement this policy, as we don't
have to note which conferences have special properties. I was feeling
particularly harried when I read your post Mary. I would like to give
preparation time for those people who want to remove selective items in
advance of this, out of respect for their wishes.
I am torn on the question of waiting for another vote. It would seem proper
to implement the policy which was approved by the members without delay, as
I am sure you will argue, but others may have a legitimate claim that if we
were to pass by membership vote in a very short time a compromise, then it
would be less disruptive to the Grex community not to implement a policy for
a short period which would cause pain to some, only to revise it shortly
thereafter.
Besides, I am not sure how many different policies I want to implement. I am
leaning toward allowing the consensus building process come to rest first
before going off and implementing anything at all. I am undecided and wish
input and guidance on this.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 314 of 367:
|
Mar 15 05:11 UTC 1997 |
This would not all happen this way in a FTF (under RRO). I therefore
support letting all these related motions play out before taking any
action. (Under RRO, the chair could just rule this, if there was a chair....
(it is kinda fun trying to function in a chaotic system, though)).)
|
mary
|
|
response 315 of 367:
|
Mar 15 05:15 UTC 1997 |
Steve, you say, "I am sure you will argue..." but I'm not going to
argue. So there. ;-)
Really, whatever folks decide to do here is fine by me. You
want to delay implementing this until all the votes are a done
deal, no problem.
This issue has taken on a life of its own. It maybe be something of a
novelty for this to happen on Grex but I've seen it many a time on M-net.
Over the years I've watched in total amazement how folks can get so
completely immersed, dominated, and emotionally devastated by the politics
of a bbs. Grex is getting big enough now that we have collected a cadre
of folks susceptible to this behavior. Enough to feed the action and make
it a good show. Progress, of a kind.
But maybe it's what I'm exposed to all day long that keeps me from feeling
too much empathy for this crisis. You want to feel crushed? Find out
your cancer is inoperative. You want to feel helpless? Watch a loved one
clinging to life while your heart-felt wish is they would mercifully die.
Feel left out of the decision making? Deal with a teenager out of
control. Feel you've "lost your home?" Be without a place to sleep at
night. There are issues worthy of the kind of angst we've seen here.
Unregistered reading of a bbs's conferences ain't it.
I'm hoping some leadership steps up to the podium and helps get us through
this (exaggerated) issue. You won't please everyone but you will be
helping all involved.
|
mary
|
|
response 316 of 367:
|
Mar 15 05:16 UTC 1997 |
Rane slipped in.
|
senna
|
|
response 317 of 367:
|
Mar 15 08:52 UTC 1997 |
I have two questions: Why? No reason to do it, really.. people for the most
part won't really care, I dont' think it will noticeably increase volume.
Most people on grex don't even care about confs. Why not? anon people can
read grex confs all they want.. jsut telnet itn, get yourself a login, and
read. It's not private. it's public. I don't really care.
|
mary
|
|
response 318 of 367:
|
Mar 15 19:54 UTC 1997 |
I think you're showing a good grasp of the (non-) issues here,
senna. Congratulations.
|