|
Grex > Coop9 > #27: Motion: To allow anonymous reading via Backtalk | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 624 responses total. |
rcurl
|
|
response 310 of 624:
| 
Jan 9 07:18 UTC 1997 |
I posted a notice of this issue in four cfs (in which I am a fw), asking
for opinions. One person posted in one cf indicating they were in favor of
anonymous web reading. That is one message. The other message is that
these cfs - and in my opinion many others - are barely alive for lack of
participants. Where are they? Probably surfing the internet. Grex was
founded to make conferencing available to the public, but It seems the
public has moved on to better technology - perhaps also along with a
shorter attention span. CLI will probably survive for a small group, but
that isn't serving the general public. A shift to Backtalk will continue
for more and more users. Therefore, in my opinion, anonymous web reading
should be tried as a means to open the "window" of conferencing to more
people. So, I'm convinced of that. The question then is, what should be
done about a small number of users that use conferencing for what they
consider as too-personal for anonymous web reading, even though the
majority appear to think that there will be no probIems. I believe in
democratic majority rule but with protection for the minority. Often it
has to be one way or another, but there is room for a compromise here that
will not cause any serious injury to Grex or other users. I therefore
propose a modification of the "exempt conferences" along the lines of:
1. cfs can decide whether they want anonymous web reading by discussing
it, but the fw deciding.
2. No items can be linked from those cfs that choose to not allow
anonymous reading.
3. All conferences will remain open to all registered users (as now).
4. No new cfs may be created as "exempt".
I would suggest two weeks for decisions to be made, at which time the
policy and anonymous web reading of "non-exempt" cfs would be inaugurated.
|
remmers
|
|
response 311 of 624:
|
Jan 9 13:01 UTC 1997 |
(Suggestion: Let's call it "unregistered reading" instead of
"anonymous reading". It's not truly anonymous, since http
servers keep logs of hits. Also, anonymous reading has always
been possible via "observer" mode.)
I like the spirit of Rane's proposal. Sets a clear new direction
for Grex; I can live with the grandfathering.
Also, it's not tedious administratively except possibly for
clause (2). It would be nice if we could have the software
enforce any linking restrictions rather than staff having to
play police. This may not be easy though, as we don't have
Picospan source.
Question for Rane: What do you intend if an fw doesn't respond
by the end of the decision period? Leave the conference exempt
of open it up?
|
raven
|
|
response 312 of 624:
|
Jan 9 14:00 UTC 1997 |
re # 310 I think all of this proposal is workable except for # 4. Why
can't new confernces be created that are exempt from unregistered reading?
I think it's possible that conferences may be created in the future that
may not want to permit unregistered reads. It seems to me that the
logical extension of this proposal is to let those new conferences decide
if they want to permit unregisterd reading just as the old conferences
would be allowed to decide if they want unregistered reading.
I think it might also be workable to allow linking from the confs that
don't allow anonymous reads to those that allow anoymous reads if the fw
of the conf that doesn't allow anonymous reads OKs the item to be linked.
However I don't feel strongly about this and no links is probably a good
fallback position.
|
valerie
|
|
response 313 of 624:
|
Jan 9 15:40 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 314 of 624:
|
Jan 9 17:00 UTC 1997 |
And what about items that are linked to more than one conf? I originated an
item in politics about "same sex marriages" that is now linked to three other
confs (including Gay and Sexuality, which would both be likely closed to
unregistered users) What am I supposed to do if the item is in two
closed confs and one open one? Have it unlinked? That would be a shame
because its a terrific item that has lasted several months already. The
flaw in rcurl's argumkent is that so many items are linked already that it
is going ot be difficult for users to know at times whether they ar
responding to a an item that is closed to anonymous readers or open to
them. Noone responding to that item in SExuality is going to have any
idea that it is open somewhere else.
Also rcrulc's idea, like raven's still makes implication that the fw's own
the conferences. I really think a solution needs tobe found that doesnt
have anyone making that sort of arbitrary decision. I really dont see how
rcurl's pro[posal is different than RAven's.
|
e4808mc
|
|
response 315 of 624:
|
Jan 9 17:36 UTC 1997 |
I would like to back the idea that new conferences *do not* get to decide
whether they are open to unregistered reading. The plan would be to
"grandfather" some current conferences where the participants feel strongly
about previous posts. New congerences would be open to anyone to read and
post, and everyone would know that from the beginning. That way we wouldn't
continue to split Grex into two types of conferences. All new conferences
would be as open as technology could make them.
|
remmers
|
|
response 316 of 624:
|
Jan 9 18:13 UTC 1997 |
Yes.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 317 of 624:
|
Jan 9 18:14 UTC 1997 |
Just for the record, I don't care about any of the compromises, I oppose
unregistered reading in any form, as I don't believe it advances grex's
objective(s).
|
davel
|
|
response 318 of 624:
|
Jan 9 18:25 UTC 1997 |
... whereas (just for the record) I also don't support any of the compromises,
but it's because I think limiting web readership doesn't advance Grex's
objectives.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 319 of 624:
|
Jan 9 18:30 UTC 1997 |
Re #311: yes, staff would have to remove links, but if the proposal has
general support, few links would be created and probably mostly be accident
or oversight.
fws not responding: I suppose we may have some cfs with no active fws. They
should choose new fws. If, however, a fw refuses to decide, I would propose
that the Grex chairman poll the cf, and make the decision.
Re #312: my reason for #4 is that this decision is essentially one of a *new
direction* for Grex, as remmers observed. The majority should be able to
choose new directions. However the proposal is designed to allow those that
obvject to specific cfs being open to unregistered reading to have everything
they have now - and indeed, for as long as those cfs remain or until they ask
to join the mainstream.
The "no linking" provision is to keep it simple and enforceable. If someone
wants an item in an "open" conference, they can start it there.
Re #314 - currently linked items. If a "closed" cf doesn't want an item
to remain linked, they can restart it as an unlinked item. I think that
anything now linked to what will be "open" cfs is history, and can be
continued in the "open" cf. Otherwise - negotiate. This is a temporary
problem.
Re #315: that is the spirit of this proposal.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 320 of 624:
|
Jan 9 18:39 UTC 1997 |
Re #317: I think it does advance Grex objectives, as it provides a wider
public with an example of the conferencing format, which will attract new
registered users that want to participate. It will also make cfs with a lot
of information content that people might want to explore, more like web pages
- a source of public information.
Re #318: Dave, would you explain further? The result of this proposal would
open probably 85+% of conferences to unregistered reading. Its only purpose
is to move in that direction without losing the participation of a few active
users in what they consider "sensitive" cfs. View this as a small price to
pay for a greater objective.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 321 of 624:
|
Jan 9 19:52 UTC 1997 |
I guess grandfathering it in is ok so long as the eventual
policy is that all confs be open to reading by unregistered users. To
that end I propose that not only new confs be automatically open but
that ifa currently closed confis re-started, the cfadmin *treat* it like a
new conf and also make it open to unregistered users at the time of the
restart. This way would make it clear that grex is moving toward a
uniform policy.
I still think there are going to be compliants because it ca be hard at
times to remember how many confs an item is linked between and will be
even harder to reemember if one or some fo those are closed.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 322 of 624:
|
Jan 9 20:00 UTC 1997 |
A lot of cf restarts occur because a cf hos gotten too unwieldly, and not
because of any change in topic, content (type), fw, or participants. If
we are going to be willing to "grandfather" cfs thought sensitive, I don't
want toset any traps for them to be ungrandfathered later. I think the
proposal goes as far as we can at this time.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 323 of 624:
|
Jan 9 20:07 UTC 1997 |
its not a trap, a re-started conference is a new conference in effect and
if new confs are to be requiored to be open, it wouldnt be fair to the other
new conf fws
if an old fw can re-start their conf without having to confform to the same
rules they have to. The idea shouw be to one day, even if it is tenyears from
now, have all cnofs open to unregistered users.
|
raven
|
|
response 324 of 624:
|
Jan 9 20:35 UTC 1997 |
Re 323 I agree wholeheartdly with 322. Poetry will probably have to be
restarted soon as it has over 800 items and it in *no* way will be a new
conference. If the prposal is stated with this restart clause it is
unacceptable to me and I imagine it will unacceptable to the other fws who
object to unregistered access as they will all probably restart their
conferences at some point in the future.
I still don't see why new confereces shouldn't be allowed to decide if
they want to be read by unregisterted users. I could see how a
hypothetical new conference on say psychological tramas or invasive
medical procedures that would involve discussion of personal history might
want to be closed to unregistered users. I am willing to compramise and
accept just current conferences being grandfathered in for the sake of
making policy, however, I think it shows Grex to be moving away from the
principle of democratic control and towards inflexible overgeneral rules
which is sad to me.
|
jenna
|
|
response 325 of 624:
|
Jan 10 00:17 UTC 1997 |
I also think no conferences should choose, actually perhaps the person
who]proposes the new conference shoudl propose which way they want ti to be.
if the eventual users
change their minds, they can change there minds. I ALSO would like to add a
.. wait alright
lets thin logically here jenna.
I think the part about not allowin new conferences to be grex-only
should be scrapped, that old conferences restarting is not an acceptible time
toopen the conference to the web, and that AT any time anybody in a conference
can start an item discussing changing from the status quo. Such as:
if the cooking conference has been on th web for three months but some people
decide
they hate being on the web, say a majority, and express it in an item,
hopefully their fairiwtness
can and will change the status of the conference. I don't think ti needs to
be a permanent thing.
Maybe the new conferences won't want to be closed, never having had the
concept of it in
the first place. (I think it oulwd be great if my sense of the lind
ending kinda shifted a few words to the left ;<)
|
kerouac
|
|
response 326 of 624:
|
Jan 10 01:43 UTC 1997 |
#325...this is not about confs being or not being on the web, they have all
been "on the web" since Janc installed Backtalk. My feeling is that
putting those confs on the web was a system decision, and making them
available to unregistered users should also be a system decision.
The central flaw in rcxurl's plan, as it was in raven's, is that letting
theconfs decide makes Grexitself hypocritical. Grex would be saying that
on the one hand, under no c ircumstances may a conf close itself to
registered users, but on the other hand, with *other* users it can make
its own choice. If this is allowed, then Grex would have no argument for
those who ask why they should not be allowed to close their confs to any
user, registered or otherwise.
This is like a states rights issue with Grex as the federal government and
the confs as states. Unless you establish who has jurisdiction, yoiu can
ne ver make policy. Determining levels of access is a system-level issue,
and falls beyond the jurisdiction of the conferences themselves. The
conferences were created on grex, not the other way around.. So saying
that users of individual conferences or fw's of said conferences, have the
right to determine who can or cannot have access is giving them
jurisdiction they do not have. Grex would live without the poetry conf.
The poetry conf could not exsist without grex.
So my feeling is that any compromise that blurs the lines of jurisdiction
on a permanent basis shoshould be unaccceptable. At some point those
boundaries have to be made clear or the board and staff may as well
abolish themselves, because users of the confs will decide they can always
make up their own rulesand never accept outsidejudgements and authority.
Grex will collapase, as m-net already is, if it does not have a strong set
of central operating guidelines and clearly set out rules of access that
all conferences follow..
So I dont think any of the compromises, including my own, are ultimately
acceptable and that there should just be a straight vote, "make the confs
available to unregistered users (yes or no?)"
|
raven
|
|
response 327 of 624:
|
Jan 10 02:29 UTC 1997 |
re # 326 You sure *don't* know your history part of the reason that m-net
has seen better days is because they have a centralized confernce structure
(called conf admin) like you are proposing. M-net has endless arguments
in the policy conf because they try to run things in a centralized fashion.
If you would give democracy and decentralization a chance I think you
would find it would run smoothly and most importantly make people on
Grex happier. Why not give the people (in the confs) what they want
instead of dictating a bunch of rigid rules from above? Your imagined
slippery slope about conferences closing themselves to registered users is
just that imagined, if any conference tried to do so I'm sure that would
not be allowed by staff as *open access* is a part of the Grex by-laws.
|
nephi
|
|
response 328 of 624:
|
Jan 10 02:50 UTC 1997 |
Two words: Pandora's Box.
I think that this compromise will start a contentious beaurocracy
that will later come back around to haunt us. And I can't agree
more with raven's "inflexible overgeneral rules" statement. Do we
really want to get entrapped by arbitrary rules? That is so not
us . . .
Also, if I can I will link all the Grex humor items to a page on
my web site. This page will probably get indexed by webcrawlers
as "humor" and other popular key words. Lots of people using
Webcrawler will come across my page and hit Grex with hundreds
of http requests. It is quite likely that they'll only read a
tiny percentage of what they made Grex serve, and it is exceedingly
unlikely that they'll ever jump to Grex so they can become a part
of our community. Additionally, they'll get a very skewed image
of what Grex is by the few items that I'm likely to link. Any that
decide to take on a Grex account based on what they see on my pages
will probably leave shaking their heads. Is this the sort of
advertisement that we want? What will happen when dozens of people
start linking their favorite items to their homepages -- when the
webcrawlers start indexing those pages, too? What happens when
someone decides to link an item about sex from the Agora conference
and that gets indexed? Are we willing to let our little system
become flooded by people who most likely won't wait for an item to
finish downloading before they head on to the next page Webcrawler
served up?
And what if I decided to put the "Kerouac Item" on my homepage and
get that linked to the webcrawlers under Richard Wallner's name?
Or what if I decide to take some other item out of context and link
it to my website to embarrass someone? All of this becomes entirely
possible and incredibly easy for anyone to do when we allow
accountless reading via the web . . .
Hmm. That's not quite all of it -- just some stuff I thought up
off the cuff. I'm not feeling particularly creative tonight. I
bet that some of our 13 year-old users will find much more creative
uses of this new feature if enabled . . .
|
jenna
|
|
response 329 of 624:
|
Jan 10 03:56 UTC 1997 |
Kerouac, do you know how much fuss this country has always had about whether
to have
strong centralized government or not? after England the colonies
were so reluctaant to embark on central government they irst set up a
confederacy. After awhile that didn't completely work out, and some
compromises about who had power over what were struck up. NOwadays most people
think of themselves as Amrican anyway and consider the federal governemnt
the big one, but for a ,ong time this was a huge issue. There;s no reason not
to give the conferences some power over what happens to them.
|
e4808mc
|
|
response 330 of 624:
|
Jan 10 05:29 UTC 1997 |
How much of nephi's vision is possible? If it is as easy as he indicates, I'm
more concerned than I was about unregistered people being able to read, post,
or especially, link Grex items to their home pages.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 331 of 624:
|
Jan 10 07:00 UTC 1997 |
That would not be true for the sensitive/exempt cfs under plan "B". In all
the cfs in which I am involved I have no problem with users doing that.
That's just more communication and information distribution, which I
favor. (Actually, it would make me regret even more that the "exempt" cfs
are exempt, since if anything the world needs more sensitive discussion of
sensitive subjects, not less - but unfortunately everyone doesn't see it
this way.)
So, where do we go from here? As things stand, this is Valerie's item and
it's her option to pose the final wording of her motion. Since Grex does
not follow ROR, only she can pose the final wording of *this* item for a
vote, but anyone can start another item with a differently worded motion,
which I am inclined to do for my proposal, which I think attempts to
address the disagreement, even if not perfectly (which doesn't sound
possible). However that would be confusing. I'd therefore like to ask
Valerie what she intends to do.
|
valerie
|
|
response 332 of 624:
|
Jan 10 07:01 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
valerie
|
|
response 333 of 624:
|
Jan 10 07:01 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
valerie
|
|
response 334 of 624:
|
Jan 10 07:07 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|