|
Grex > Coop9 > #27: Motion: To allow anonymous reading via Backtalk | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 624 responses total. |
remmers
|
|
response 460 of 624:
| 
Jan 24 18:04 UTC 1997 |
More suggestions for fine-tuning the language; purely for
clarity, no substantive changes: Distinguish more clearly
between current and new policy, and make clearer when "readable"
is being used in the sense of "read-only". Maybe something like
this for the preamble:
Currently, conferences of Grex are readable by and can be
posted to by anyone who creates an account on Grex (registered
users). It is proposed to extend reading (but not posting)
access to unregistered persons, including via the World Wide
Web, in accord with the following policies:
A clause stating that the Staff conference is exempt is probably
needed too.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 461 of 624:
|
Jan 24 18:16 UTC 1997 |
The preamble should not discuss the current policy - just state the new
policy. The preamble is part of the policy and, if it is adopted, it
would not make sense to refer to "currently". remmer's "who" should be
a "that". Not all "anyone" create an account: the restrictive, or defining,
relative pronoun "that" is required.
|
richard
|
|
response 462 of 624:
|
Jan 24 18:58 UTC 1997 |
Add a clause that says that fw's of confs who choose to make their
confs closed, must add a line to their entrance screens to that effect so
there is as little confusion as possible. Also there needs to be a list of
the closed confs ina public file so that fw's can access it when they are not
sure if a conf is closed and they want to link.
I also dont like #5. When a conf is restarted it is a new conf. Agora13
is not the same conf as Agora12. Coop8 is not the same conf as Coop1. If
new confs are to be readable, itshould apply to restarted confs. I dont
think it is fair to future fw's of new confs that other fw's can restart
new versions of old confs ad infinitum without having to open them.
|
mary
|
|
response 463 of 624:
|
Jan 24 20:14 UTC 1997 |
I'd support it, Valerie.
|
raven
|
|
response 464 of 624:
|
Jan 24 21:28 UTC 1997 |
re # 462 You mean you don't like # 4 numbskull.
*I* don't like #5. I think a conference that is grandfathered in as being
closed to unregistered users should be able to choose to retain (or drop)
that status, with votes of the conferences users, to be decided by the fw,
as long as Grex is an operating system. I'm willing to accept the
compramise that only current conferences can be grandfathered in (with
some hesitance I might add). I will not accept the compramise in #5. The
goal of the policy should not be to goad all conferences into becoming
accessible to unregistered users, rather the goal should be to protect the
minority of sensative conferences from unregistered users if the current
users of the conference are uncomfotable with unregistered users. Under
this policy without # 5 probably 85%+ of the cinferences will be fully
open to unregistered users, this number will only increase as the number
of conferences increases on Grex over time. IMO the people who don't like
unregistered reading are giving *a lot* here and the contra side should
quit pushing the issue while they are ahead.
|
richard
|
|
response 465 of 624:
|
Jan 25 01:28 UTC 1997 |
The Intro conf should also be exempt from being open to unregistered users
because otherwise rob will have to restart it (unless he can remember
which items are linked from which conf and unlink all of the
affedctedones) Nothing wrong with an intro conf taht is an "introduction"
to those who alreadyhave logins.
Also, how is this to be effected? Is there to be a mass mailing from all
fw's to the cfadmin telling them what their decision is regarding this?
Or is cfadmin goig to assume that all fw's not responding want their confs
open?
Also,a re there any confs wwithout fw's rightnow? how to handle them?
|
kerouac
|
|
response 466 of 624:
|
Jan 25 01:48 UTC 1997 |
Some confs, like Accordion, have no stated fw's and others have fw's who
are absent. Carson is fw of at least two confs and d he's ot around right
now to make a decision.
I guess some might want a conf like "garage" closed too, since hardware issues
could be considered sensisitve. I dont think it makes much difference
|
dpc
|
|
response 467 of 624:
|
Jan 25 02:20 UTC 1997 |
I oppose both the latest Clauses 3 and 5 and oppose the enactment of
the proposal as stated. This whole area is too iffy to be making
a policy which will result in Grex moving steadily toward reading
of (nearly) all conferences by unregistered users.
|
robh
|
|
response 468 of 624:
|
Jan 25 03:32 UTC 1997 |
Re 465 - I'm quite capable of zapping all the items that have been
linked from the registered-users-only confs, and will gladly do so.
No problem there.
|
srw
|
|
response 469 of 624:
|
Jan 25 17:27 UTC 1997 |
Regarding Richard's various ideas:
I see no need to require fws to add a line to
their entrance screen. That should be optional.
I disagree that restarting a conference is like
a new conference. That would eliminate a
significant part of the compromise.
There is no need for the info conference to be
exempt, for precisely the reasons that robh just
mentioned.
I can't think of why we would want grarge to be
closed. I don't think anyone considers its
contents sensitive in the slightest.
I support Valerie's new wording of the
compromise..
|
rcurl
|
|
response 470 of 624:
|
Jan 25 17:36 UTC 1997 |
I echo Steve's comments.
|
richard
|
|
response 471 of 624:
|
Jan 25 17:52 UTC 1997 |
But Steve, you didnt in #469 respond to my other concerns, namely what
to do about FW conflicts, and linking conflicts.
The re-starting bit isnt important really because any objecting FW could
simply kill out all the old items individually and restart it without
cfadmin.
But it wouldnt be right to put into effect a proposal without
considering ALL the ramifications, such as:
1. Should there be a "grandfather" clause regarding currently linked
items from closed confs to open confs, or should fw's of open confs be
required to unlink any items from closed confs?
2. If there are more than one fw and they cant agree on whether to be
open or closed, should cfadmin act as arbitrator and decide?
3. I still think there should be a public file listing all the closed
confs.
4. If an unregistered user tries to access a "closed" conf, should they
get at the least a listing of the headers for the items in that conf? I
think that would be reasonable and would at least give them a *taste*
for the confs they can't read. Is that even technically feasible?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 472 of 624:
|
Jan 25 18:21 UTC 1997 |
No, no, no, no. Why make it complicated?
It just occurred to me that unregistered readers have no files and hence
read every cf as unseen. That is going to greatly suppress the use of
unregistered reading. In fact, most of such reading will probably be one
time sampling, and either the reader will register or not come back.
|
jenna
|
|
response 473 of 624:
|
Jan 25 20:53 UTC 1997 |
Well IU do have one question brought to my attention
by babozita. What if a conference is opened if this compromise
passes and a user wouldnlike to kill all of their old items.
In case you don't all know, once a response has been made to
an item, even the origiginal oposter can't delete it, onlyu
the FW can. Do people who want to delete their old items
(or what about items made with previous accounts?)
have to go ton each fairwitness and beg them to do it?
For one, if say, poetry was opened (whihc I'm pretty sure it will bvote not
to be) and I wasn't fw and wanrted to delete the items I entered as
say "shade" (which may not be a good example because it may not
have been reaped yet, but still), what would I do?
What should I do as FW if poetry opens and someone else with
old account \s wants old items deleted? How do I know if
the person is the same?
--I really think that every confeence that decided to be open, when it
decided should have to restart (or coordinate it's opening with restarting)
to avoid this issue.
|
scott
|
|
response 474 of 624:
|
Jan 25 21:42 UTC 1997 |
Authors of items can still expurgate/scribble their own item deahders and
responses in other items. True, anyone can read expurgated/scribbled items,
but only with a shell account.
|
scg
|
|
response 475 of 624:
|
Jan 25 22:32 UTC 1997 |
This proposal still looks like a mess to me, and I will be voting against it.
Sometime soon, I will be entering a proposal to open all conferences to
unregistered reading.
|
jenna
|
|
response 476 of 624:
|
Jan 26 01:29 UTC 1997 |
better this than that (475).
|
srw
|
|
response 477 of 624:
|
Jan 26 01:40 UTC 1997 |
I would vote for steve's proposal if this compromise fails, but not if it
succeeds. I guess if it is going to be hard to locate some fws I would like
to see such conferences be open. I am only interested in offering the
compromise to those conferences that care enough about this issue to be
involved. I'd prefer to see all confs open, but this is a reasonable
compromise. Can we have it work so that if a conf has no functioning fw it
is treated as having no objection to unregistered viewing.
Yes, Rane, unregistered viewers have no participation files. It is not
a situation many will tolerate for long. Anyone who finds it interesting
will want to join, and that is the purpose of this. The reason to have as many
conferences open as possible, is that someone may wander along andgo to the
page that lists our conferences, and see a topic that interests them enough
to check on what we're saying about it. What a shame it would be if that
happened to be one of our closed ones. Most people would not want to go to
the trouble to create an account without at least a clue that it might be
worth their trouble.
|
richard
|
|
response 478 of 624:
|
Jan 26 01:57 UTC 1997 |
I think Steve's and Valeries proposals should be voted on simultaneusly.
Let thebest proposal win. Given the general aversion to rules and
stipulations, I think a majority will find a straight and simple
"lets let all confsbe open" preferable.
|
richard
|
|
response 479 of 624:
|
Jan 26 02:08 UTC 1997 |
Letsnot forget that Valeries proposal will necessitate the formation of
rules to cover how this is to be implemented; when tobe implemented; should
fw's inundate the cfadmin with their decisions on whether to be exempt or
not? Should confs with no fw's be open? Should confs with in-abstentia
fw's be open? Should there be a committee formed to arbitrate fw disputes
or should the board decide in such cases if a confshouldbe open or closed?
Should there be a committee to oversee linking disputes, such as willoccur
with currently linked items from closed confs? Should staff be directed to
disallow or discourage copying of material from closed confs? If someone does
copy material from a closed conf, should cfadmin kill that item?
What aboutwhen an item is accidentaly linked from a closed conf? What if an
fw refuses to make a decision on the basis of not believing in the policy
itself? Do the members then decide or does the cfadmin remove the fw, or
simply declare the conf open. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 480 of 624:
|
Jan 26 08:26 UTC 1997 |
No, let the users decide, ditto, no, no, no, no, huh, let the users decide,
yes...etc etc etc. These are all "red herrings". The problems will be almost
non-exitent (except for Richard hopping around the edges).
|
richard
|
|
response 481 of 624:
|
Jan 26 18:37 UTC 1997 |
but why take the chance? it is the *potential* for problems that has to be
considered...this (valeries' proposal) is a way of appeasing a small group
of users when the clear consensus is for all confs to be open. Grex should
not be beholden to special interests! (oh yikes, I sound like a republican!)
\.
|
valerie
|
|
response 482 of 624:
|
Jan 26 19:31 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
raven
|
|
response 483 of 624:
|
Jan 26 21:31 UTC 1997 |
I still don't see the reason for # 5. <sigh>
|
richard
|
|
response 484 of 624:
|
Jan 26 22:43 UTC 1997 |
this proposal is going to be as long as thebylaws themselves before long.
|