response 360 of 624:

Jan 16 16:13 UTC 1997

I remember a discussion where one was planned and there
seemed to be a lot of support for how useful it would be.
Maybe it just never got coded.

Would it be possible for a membership vote to be held
where there were three options - one to allow unregistered
reading of all conferences, one to keep things as they are
now, and other for a hybrid resolution?  That way you'd
get to see how the membership would like this to go.

response 362 of 624:

Jan 16 16:32 UTC 1997

Right, there was a big discussion about a "guest account" a
couple of years ago. It never got coded. Ironically, even though
the guest account would have allowed unregistered reading of
all conferences, I don't recall that there was much if any
controversy about that aspect of it.

If the proposal is worded as Valerie proposes, I would probably
vote against it even though I favor unregistered reading,
because I'm opposed to making it an option for new conferences
(and only reluctantly willing to make it an option for existing
ones).

Which raises the question of just what it would mean if the
proposal is defeated, since people could be voting against it
for different reasons.

response 364 of 624:

Jan 16 16:35 UTC 1997

Multi-way votes are really difficult to do fairly.  EG, if you have options
A1, A2, and B, with A1 and A2 being similar, and the majority of people
prefering either A1 or A2, then B may win because the majority were split over
A1 and A2.  There are ways to handle these things, but they are full of
paradoxes and problems.  If it can be narrowed down to two options that would
be nicer.

response 366 of 624:

Jan 16 17:43 UTC 1997

Valerie's proposal, makes Grex look hypocritical, because 
on the one hand Grex would be saying that under no circumstances can
conferences close themselves to *registered* users (any of
them at any time) and on the other hand saying that with *unregistered*
users do as you please.  An unregistered user would be a user of grex and
should not be treated differently, for the same reason that *members*
arent given preferential treatment over regular users in terms of conference
access.  Users of Grex are users of grex.  Period.  It is

It is obvious that those who are against ubnnregisterd reading only 
begrudginly accept current grex open-access policy, and would prefer if they
could close their
confs to ALL users and selectively admit people.  Open access
means not being able to control who reads your posts, not KNOWING who is
readingyour posts.

And it would also be setting a really bad precedent if concensus is
torpedoed by three or four people threatening to leave.  That gives THEM more
power than anyone else here, they are dictatingp olicy.  There are plenty
of us who feel just as strongly as they do that unregistered users SHOULD
be allowed access to all the conferences.  Yet because we are not threatening
to leave, our views do not matter as much.  Tjhey can dicatate the wording
of the proposal BECAUSE they are threatening to leave.  And that stinks.

If Valerie is being really fair, she will propose not only her latest
pro[posal but the one in item #0, the original proposal, and let the members
decide.

response 368 of 624:

Jan 16 19:00 UTC 1997

I would favor a proposal that allows current conferences to discuss the issue,
with the fw(s) deciding based on those discussions whether or not the
conference is open to unregistered reading.  
HOwever, I want this to be a limited compromise, only for current conferences.
All new conferences would be open to unregistered reading.  

response 370 of 624:

Jan 16 21:22 UTC 1997

re #367 Kerouac does repeat himself a lot doesn't he. :-)

re #369  I think it makes sense to let the confernces decide myself.  It's
more democratic than ruling by fiat for the unknown future.  Is the only
objection to letting future confs decide the linking issue?  If that is
the case lets try the proposal as Valerie has stated for 90 days and see
if linking *really* is a problem.

response 372 of 624:

Jan 17 01:32 UTC 1997

I support new conferences being open, without a decision by the users.  The
"let current users decide" sounds like the compromise between the "all open,
right now" faction, and the "every conference decides for itself, forever"
faction.  While prefereing the "all open" option, I can understand some
current conferences not wanting that.  I don't think any more conferences
should be started under the innocent assumption that there is "privacy" on
Grex.  

response 374 of 624:

Jan 17 15:53 UTC 1997

Anyone else sucking parts of their (or someone else's) bodies over
this issue?  Which ones?

response 376 of 624:

Jan 17 17:00 UTC 1997

#375...no no no..thats too much bureacracy...the idea is to
move toward a uniform policy that all confs follow.  Grrandfathering
in the unregistered access policy is only reasonable if eventually it
applies to all confs.  Having confs decide and then deciding again and again
and again
every time it appears appoprirate would be a disaster.  There would be
constant
bickering.

response 378 of 624:

Jan 17 18:20 UTC 1997

A review of the items or responses in this item suggest:

9 members would vote for all confs to be open to unregistered users
3 members would vote against
5 members support the idea, but want a compromise

If this xsample is accurate, any compromise that does not achieve the
goal of all confs being eventually avialable to unregistered users 
would fail.

I still think actually that letting the authors of individual items
decide is the best solution.  The problem is that we dont have the picospan
source code.  NO big deal.  Just say that Jan puts a button on the item
posting page on Backtalk giving authors the optionof hiding their
posts from unregistered users.   Anyone on picospan who wants to use
that command can use lynx and run backtalk to post their items.  They
have the choice of concealing their work so only those with logins can
read it.  That achieves the goals of both sides.

Since only a few will really have the true desire to conceal their work,
I dont think its any big deal for them to run lynx and for picospan
to remain unchange.

response 382 of 624:

Jan 17 18:49 UTC 1997

A large number of responses slipped in. In answer to the time limit 
question, I'd rather not see a time limit hardwired into the policy. If 
we conclude that it is flawed policy, we can always change it. If we 
put in the time limit, will we have to vore again if it is a success and 
we want to continue it?

Richard: Nowhere are we discussing the identification of individual 
posts as readable by unregistered. This is decided on a conf by conf 
basis at the finest granularity. Finer than that is impractical, and not 
being considered here.

response 384 of 624:

Jan 17 19:39 UTC 1997

Those things would assist both the telnet and web crowds as they currently
use the system. However unregistered web reading opens additional access,
qualitatively furthering Grex's "open access" principles. 

Valerie, your proposal to allow future new cfs to elect exemption from
unregistered web access would *perpetuate* a significant departure from
Grex principles of open access. The idea of allowing it for existing
conferences is solely to get past the immediate disagreement - not to
create a new principle. I can imagine that those that want to close their
cfs to such access would support the same right for future cfs, since if
they can get half a hog, why not go for the whole thing? But it is not
Grex philosophy. The only reason we are even considering this compromise
is because we're such nice people, not because it is a good idea. Total
open access is the right idea.