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. 

response 386 of 624:

Jan 17 21:31 UTC 1997

The member vote needs tobe a on a specifically defined policy. Valerie's
proposal, it seems to me, would be the equivalent of saying that the
members dont want to take a position on this issue.  Leaving this up to
the fair witnesses is totally avoiding the issue, which should be:

"Should grex adopt a policy for its conferencing environment, that its
confs be available for reading by unregistered users?"

That is what should be voted on.  No compromises should be agreed upon
until a policy is in place.  If the members vote that they want all confs
tobe available in this manner, then it is incumbent upon the board to find
a compromise that would eventually lead to that.  Rcurl's compromise could
then be considered.  I think any "exemptions" should be then considered
temporary and that once a conf is re-started or once the current fw's
leave, the exemptions expire and the confs are then to be opened.

But if the members vote no to the basic policy, THEN you have subsequent
votes on whether to have one conf or some confs, on a permanent basis,
made available and others not.

It would be misleading to vote on compromises before voting on basic
policy.

response 388 of 624:

Jan 17 22:06 UTC 1997

I also think that allowing the fair witness to make decisions on whether a
conf is open or closed, is implying and making it policy that the fw owns
that conference. I view all conferenceshere as being owned by Grex, and
that only Grex (meaning the members) should be able to make decisions
about access.  Since it is impractical for there tobe member votes on a
conf by conf basis, to decide which should be open and which shouldnt, it
is only reasonable to expect there to be ONE set of rules that every conf
has to abide by.

I also dont think it is possible for a fw to make a decision that reflects
accurately the sentiments of eveyrone who belongs to that conf.  Only a
small mpercentage of those who read any conf actually post in it.   And
the fw can only know the sentiments of those who post.

response 390 of 624:

Jan 18 02:09 UTC 1997

Re 385 - Yah, that's what I thought too. And what I said,
waaaay back when.  Once again my opinions are being ignored
by everyone else.  Ennh.  I'm used to it.

response 392 of 624:

Jan 18 03:06 UTC 1997

I'd be disappointed if people weren't drawn in by it, because 
those people wouldn't participate. However it is reasonable to 
expect many will not want to participate. That happens today.

response 394 of 624:

Jan 18 15:52 UTC 1997

Kerouac, ;please stop spouting member polls.
They're not the ony think that matters and not all the members
are here, and you fail to take into account the fact that people
who mightvote yes in general might also vote yes for a compromise.
--
I don't object to this for now, I object to it for certain
topics in general (open conferences).I'll still object in 5
years, probably...
I think it qwould be grosely unfair, even if you are only
grandfathering conferences in, to deny the conference of the future
the right to do what it wants.

response 396 of 624:

Jan 18 18:50 UTC 1997

#393...rob, you are fighting to change this now, but if it does become 
policy, and you still believe it is wrong, why stop fighting?  With all 
the time and effort you put into Grex, I would think that you wouldnt 
want to leave.  That you would WANT to stay and make your arguments 
again and at the right time propose another vote to repeal this.  

If you were to simply leave, it would show you have no faith in Grex and 
no real committment.  In being elected to the Board and agreeing to 
serve, you made a contract with the members of Grex that you would 
believe in Grex and protect and preserve Grex to the best of your 
ability for the two years of your term.  If you were to leave over this, 
you would be stabbing in the back every person who voted for you.  You 
would be saying to the members, "I dont really care what you want.  If 
it isnt what *I* want, then *I'm* gone"

Trust the judgement of Grex's voting members.  If you believe in Grex, 
then you have to believe in the people who are Grex.  This is a really 
important issue and it deserves to be decided on the basis of which 
proposal is best for Grex's future, NOT which proposal will satisfy 
three or four people so they won't leave.

This issue is really about what Grex's goals are and what it wants to 
be.  Grex is committed to providing an "open-access" conferencing 
system, but there seems to be differing definitions of what "open 
access" means.  I think "open access" means that any user of Grex, any 
person who comes to this location, may have access to Grex's 
conferences.  Is a user who uses Grex generically and without a login 
not a user?  If I go to the library, and I do not have a library card 
with my name on it, does that mean I cannot go to certain floors or read 
books with certain subject matters?

There is too much of a "name, rank, and serial number" mentality in the 
world, as if noone can be trusted and everyone should have their ids 
tattooed on their heads.  I always thought the idea of Grex being open 
access was to foster the ideal that people should trust each other and 
that the whole world is a community and nobody is a stranger.  Grex 
should want its conferences open.  If any of its conferences are 
permanently closed to any users, it would defeat that ideal.  You 
shouldnt have to give your name to be part of a community.  

That is why I'm opposed to Grex's verification policies and why I'm 
opposed to this.  But whatever happens, I'm not leaving because-- unlike 
robh-- I'm not going to give up my hope and belief in what Grex is just 
because I dont agree with one policy or another.

response 398 of 624:

Jan 18 20:06 UTC 1997

I can't resist pointing out that the first sentence of Article 8 of
the bylaws clearly states:

     In the event the membership is unable to support Cyberspace
     Communications, all property belonging to the *club* shall be
     sold. (Emphasis added.)

So the bylaws say that Grex is a "club".  So much for the argument that
somehow we already have a *duty* to keep the conferences open for
anyone who wants to use them as a "rest stop on the Internet" without
registering.