|
Grex > Coop13 > #111: A Proposal to Clarify Grex's Stance on Deleting Items | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 235 responses total. |
robh
|
|
response 50 of 235:
| 
Feb 10 05:51 UTC 2004 |
Not that I think jp2 or any of the other M-Net twits care,
but for the record I voted before I got Valerie's e-mail.
|
krj
|
|
response 51 of 235:
|
Feb 10 06:57 UTC 2004 |
Was just ruminating: in all the text that's been written on this, did
anyone mention the precedent of the destruction of the Sex conference
by a fairwitness on her way out of the system? This happened in the
aftermath of the "unregistered reading via web" vote.
|
robh
|
|
response 52 of 235:
|
Feb 10 07:02 UTC 2004 |
I do indeed remember that ('twas the same time I resgined
from baff, for the same reason), and I think she had less
reason to do what she did that Valerie had.
|
naftee
|
|
response 53 of 235:
|
Feb 10 12:47 UTC 2004 |
Too bad I wasn't around.
|
janc
|
|
response 54 of 235:
|
Feb 10 15:32 UTC 2004 |
I'm disinclined to start generating written policies for everything Grex
does.
|
gull
|
|
response 55 of 235:
|
Feb 10 16:11 UTC 2004 |
Re resp:29: I think people might vote differently when the question is
presented without specific users being involved. I suspect a lot of
people voted the way they did out of sympathy for valerie and jep.
|
aruba
|
|
response 56 of 235:
|
Feb 10 17:36 UTC 2004 |
It will be a different question if we're voting on a general policy.
|
tod
|
|
response 57 of 235:
|
Feb 10 18:43 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 58 of 235:
|
Feb 10 18:52 UTC 2004 |
Look everyone, a policy will not keep a rogue FW from mass item murder, since
the policy does not control / constrain the power a FW has. All you can do
with a policy is set expectations of acceptable behavior and use it to justify
the removal of a rogue FW / staff who deliberately violates it.
|
jp2
|
|
response 59 of 235:
|
Feb 10 18:56 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
tod
|
|
response 60 of 235:
|
Feb 10 18:56 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 61 of 235:
|
Feb 10 18:59 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
tod
|
|
response 62 of 235:
|
Feb 10 19:00 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 63 of 235:
|
Feb 10 19:05 UTC 2004 |
Actually, with the new policy, there _would_ be a mechanism to undo a
deletion. All that is needed is a statement that deletions are not allowed,
which is what this proposal accomplishes.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 64 of 235:
|
Feb 10 19:19 UTC 2004 |
No, there is nothing in the proposal to limit (by policy only) item killing
that mandates that staff will immediate restore items killed in violation.
You will be right back to where we were with valerie's and jep's items.
Thankfully, I don't see that as being a common occurrence, in fact I expect
it to be a rare occurrence. Therefore I'm not overly concerned about a policy
being adopted or not.
By all means, try to get a policy passed that makes sense, is fair, and
clearly lays out the norms. Just don't expect it to deter rogue FW / staff
who are willing to "go out in a blaze of glory".
|
robh
|
|
response 65 of 235:
|
Feb 10 21:10 UTC 2004 |
Re 57 - Not particularly, but thanks for asking, bully.
|
gull
|
|
response 66 of 235:
|
Feb 11 03:57 UTC 2004 |
I think resp:64 is right in that a policy isn't needed to protect
against valerie's original deletion. No policy is going to save you
from rogue staff. What we do need is a policy that can address the
situation jep's request got us in. His item's deletion created a
situation where it appears users have a right to request that their
items be removed by staff. We need a policy if we want to settle
whether or not that's the case.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 67 of 235:
|
Feb 11 21:19 UTC 2004 |
From what little I've read, I'm not sure that anyone else with staff / cfadm
capabilities would have unilaterally acted on jep's request the way that
valerie did. Thus I don't have a great fear if no policy allowing item
deletion by request is passed - without a policy, it's not likely to happen.
|
gull
|
|
response 68 of 235:
|
Feb 11 21:31 UTC 2004 |
But it leaves us in a situation where we have no way of explaining why
jep's items were deleted, but items that (for example) jp2 asks to be
deleted are not. "We have a policy now" is a pretty good explanation.
|
jp2
|
|
response 69 of 235:
|
Feb 11 21:50 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
naftee
|
|
response 70 of 235:
|
Feb 11 22:27 UTC 2004 |
I have asked too and all people do is make fun of me :(
|
gelinas
|
|
response 71 of 235:
|
Feb 12 00:42 UTC 2004 |
No, we don't have a "policy." We _do_ have a "sense of the community"
that items should not be deleted Just Because the item author asks for it.
In fact, even valerie admitted as much, when she didn't delete jp2's
item 39, as he requested. Since she has been the only staff member to
delete items on that ground, it seems fairly obvious to me that, in the
absence of a membership vote explicitly establishing a policy of "delete
on request of item author," it's not going to happen again.
I would, for future reference, prefer to have a clearer sense of the
community. 'Twould probably be best 'twere a policy or membership proposal.
|
tod
|
|
response 72 of 235:
|
Feb 12 00:44 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 73 of 235:
|
Feb 12 01:04 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 74 of 235:
|
Feb 12 01:26 UTC 2004 |
No. Every current staff member is aware that deleting an item on request is
-not- a policy that everyone agrees to, that in fact it would lead to a hue
and cry in Coop.
|