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.

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.

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.

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!)
\.

response 483 of 624:

Jan 26 21:31 UTC 1997

I still don't see the reason for # 5. <sigh>

response 485 of 624:

Jan 26 23:04 UTC 1997

It is best to omit discussion or explanation from policy statements. I
therefore suggest the following rewording of the preamble:

Conferences on Grex are readable by anyone that creates an account on Grex
(registered users), and also by anyone without an account (non-registered
users) that have access not requiring an account, in accord with the
following policies: 

1. The following means of access to Grex conferences do not require
   an account: web browsers.

2. Only registered users may post items and responses.

3.  <continue with the paragraphs 1 through 7 in #482>

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know whether *any* prior policy exists on these matters. I have
therefore put it all here, so that it can be referrerd to - and amended -
in the future. If prior written policy exists, it should be cited and
replaced by the new policy.

response 487 of 624:

Jan 27 04:46 UTC 1997

  I have no reservations whatsoever of the anonymous reading of any
of the conferances I manage. (hockey, micros, cinema, world, arts)

  In the Micros and the sports conf, I appear to be the sole f-w
and in the others, (arts, world, and cinema) I am not the only voice, 
and there might be opposing points of view.

response 489 of 624:

Jan 27 18:05 UTC 1997

Re-enter the motion to be voted upon (maybe even in a new item), preceded
by an explanation (or even folowed by). The reason explanations should not
be in policy statements is that they change or become moot when the policy
is adopted.

Another way is to write out both the old policy and then the new policy
(noting clearly which is which). In a more flexible medium, this is done
within one statement by (for example) underlining new text and
crossing-through text to be omitted. The latter is not practical here
because of term limits for some users. 

However, I don't think there is any prior written policy to change, in
this case. The only contrast is with past custom or practice. Anyway, when
all is said and done, what is most important is that voters know what the
policy *will be*. They can read the discussion for the rest.

response 491 of 624:

Jan 28 18:04 UTC 1997

(Re #488 (good grief, we're up to almost 500 responses): I
didn't want to change wording on the ballot after the polls had
opened and people had already been voting. However, unlike Rane,
I'm not averse to having explanatory wording in motions. My
attitude is that it's a particular member's motion and so
ultimately the wording is up to the member.)

response 495 of 624:

Jan 30 02:49 UTC 1997

The current wording is USELESS. Just like so many other things and people
around here is USELESS.

response 497 of 624:

Jan 30 06:48 UTC 1997

sure ... 'spress yourself without fear (?).

response 499 of 624:

Jan 30 16:34 UTC 1997

re # 495 It would be helpfull if you defined *how* the motion is useless.
Or perhaps you were just being negativie for negativities sake?