|
Grex > Coop9 > #27: Motion: To allow anonymous reading via Backtalk | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 624 responses total. |
richard
|
|
response 500 of 624:
| 
Jan 30 17:39 UTC 1997 |
The current wordingis useless because the softwware cant enforce
theno-linkingfrom closed confs ban, because it doesnt preclude guest accounts
being created, because it puts a bandaid over a problem rather than really
solve it one way or anotehr. I think plenty of folks would ratehr have no
unregistered reading at all than to have this proposal. Its not worth it to
do anything half way. I*f this is going to be done, lets do it...all or
nothing.
|
jenna
|
|
response 501 of 624:
|
Jan 30 22:45 UTC 1997 |
richard... i think most of the people who don't ant it at all still
don't really want it, and most of the peope who do want it in general
still want it. thus, the nature of compromse to make everybody tolerate
something.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 502 of 624:
|
Jan 31 01:10 UTC 1997 |
So when we gonna vote?
|
janc
|
|
response 503 of 624:
|
Jan 31 02:06 UTC 1997 |
Well, not till the current vote is over, at least.
|
ladymoon
|
|
response 504 of 624:
|
Jan 31 06:05 UTC 1997 |
Some people seem to be unimpressed with threats. Well, here comes one, so be
prepared to be unimpressed.
If this *thing* that the compromise has turned into passes, and the first
wording of the compromise by valerie does not get re-proposed and passed, then
I assure you of ONE thing- I will make Richard look like NOTHING in how much
argumentitive hell I will give you over EVERY policy put forth in this
conference. I'm sure that will look oh-so=-pretty to your precious web
audience, seeing this places policy conference as being worse than M-Net's
ever was. And don't think I can't do it- I've actually been quite reserved
in the past, up till now . .
|
rcurl
|
|
response 505 of 624:
|
Jan 31 06:28 UTC 1997 |
Go to it....
|
mary
|
|
response 506 of 624:
|
Jan 31 13:16 UTC 1997 |
Is that the proactive version of "Have at it"? ;-)
I'll not scold selena here becuase I sincerely believe
she is doing the best she can do.
|
remmers
|
|
response 507 of 624:
|
Jan 31 13:56 UTC 1997 |
Now that the vote program is all set up, I can start the vote
as soon as the current vote is over and I have the definitive
final wording from Valerie.
|
valerie
|
|
response 508 of 624:
|
Jan 31 15:05 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
valerie
|
|
response 509 of 624:
|
Jan 31 15:12 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
remmers
|
|
response 510 of 624:
|
Jan 31 16:53 UTC 1997 |
I think that the issue of whether a person is being reasonable
should be taken into account in deciding whether it is
reasonable to accomodate them. You can't please everyone.
I think it is also a mistake to yield to "threats".
|
raven
|
|
response 511 of 624:
|
Jan 31 17:09 UTC 1997 |
I have to say that I'm disapointed that there wasn't more discussion of
my objections to plank # 5 of the proposal. *Why* are we limiting the
freedom of conferences to switch back in forth in status as they might choose
to do?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 512 of 624:
|
Jan 31 17:43 UTC 1997 |
sigh....that "who" in the first sentence *must* be a "that", to be
grammatically correct. Also, the "it" in the third sentence has no clear
antecedent. I suggest that sentence we worded: "Such reading may be by web
browsers or by other means of access."
|
richard
|
|
response 513 of 624:
|
Jan 31 18:06 UTC 1997 |
I disagree with the new wording of #2. Staff didnt **appoint* any of the
fair witnesses. The FW's serve at the will of the confereess. Therefore it
should not be considered staff's prerogative to remove one's fw abilities
unless they represent a *system* security issue. Which this does not.
|
richard
|
|
response 514 of 624:
|
Jan 31 18:24 UTC 1997 |
Also #2 opens up a whole can of worms, because once staff agrees to
supervise fw's in one instance, that will be used as precedent to force
staff to get full time into the business of fw monitoring. FW's should
only be removed under extreme circumstances, requiring considerable
desire among the members of that particular conf and a *board* vote (the
staff is not supposed to make or presume to make those decisions, they
are there to maintain the system, not govern it)
The *only* way the no-linking policy is practical is if the software
enforces it.
|
dpc
|
|
response 515 of 624:
|
Jan 31 21:27 UTC 1997 |
Although I oppose the motion, I suggest that for clarity the first
couple of sentences read:
Under Grex' old policy, conferences on Grex are readable by anybody
who creates an account on Grex (registered users). Grex' new policy,
set forth below, enables reading of conferences by people who do
not have accounts (unregistered users).
|
e4808mc
|
|
response 516 of 624:
|
Feb 1 01:52 UTC 1997 |
I like the new text valerie proposed, with the nit-picks from rcurl and dpc
inserted.
THis makes very clear what the proposal is, and its obvious consequences.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 517 of 624:
|
Feb 1 08:21 UTC 1997 |
No, no - both of dpc's "who"s should be "that"s. I would also argue against
- again - any wording that refers to an "old policy". Policy statements should
stand on their own. The wording in #515 is really part of argumentation or
explanation, and becomes moot when adopted.
|
remmers
|
|
response 518 of 624:
|
Feb 1 14:21 UTC 1997 |
The more I look past the first sentence of part 2, the less I
like what I see. It gives a policing role to cfadm, a position
which has done very well without such duties. I'm still a backup
cfadm but would reconsider continuing to be one if I was
expected to be an enforcer.
|
dpc
|
|
response 519 of 624:
|
Feb 1 17:38 UTC 1997 |
Quit quibbling about what should/should not be inserted in a policy
statement, rcurl. There are no rules about what a policy statement
should contain. Clarity is important.
|
richard
|
|
response 520 of 624:
|
Feb 1 18:58 UTC 1997 |
This is turning into the most complex, bureacratic proposal
likely in the history of grex. A little, nice idea-- making
conferences available for browsing by unregistered users-- is
turning into an eight-headed monster. What good is the idea if
we have to put ALL these rules into place, try to enforce them,
and deal with subsequent repercussions. Grex works best from
what I've seen when things are kept simple. Straight policy that
doesnt require interpretation, enforcement or bureacracy.
"Grex welcomes unregistered users to browse any or all of its
conferences to get an idea of what we are about. Our
conferences are open and free to everyone, and if you like what
you see, please by all means sign up for a login and join in the
fun!"
Thats all it has to say. Why are we strangling ourselves with
rules and bureacracy when this is just a simple gesture to
encourage users to join grex?
|
scott
|
|
response 521 of 624:
|
Feb 1 20:53 UTC 1997 |
But richard, you were one of the people saying "it doesn't cover xxx
situation, it needs to have more language covering that".
|
richard
|
|
response 522 of 624:
|
Feb 1 22:38 UTC 1997 |
#522...only by way of pointing out the flaws in the proposal. I never
said that adding teeth here and there would suddenly make the proposal
workable. The flaws here are basic.
|
jenna
|
|
response 523 of 624:
|
Feb 2 05:30 UTC 1997 |
richard, you were the one who created an item and threatned to get arond
it... gods, some people never see their own foortprints.
I STILL THINK conferences should always be able to decide and toggle
though I see raven, some problems with togling from open to closed as
in what do yoiu do with the old file for the web, or whatever...
might be a pain in the ass. But I always assert new conferences
as well as old ones should be able to decide. That's my beef with this.
As for everybody's and and that's, it doens't really matter. the idea is
for everybody to understand it now and later, when voting, when looking at
in in the future
and I think whether they;'e who's or that's the proposal is already
at that level... *jenna wanders off in search of her driver's liscense
and a xerox machine*
|
srw
|
|
response 524 of 624:
|
Feb 2 06:04 UTC 1997 |
Well. This is a compromise. So it's not too surprising that you
have a beef with it. I would prefer all conferences to be open. I
have a beef too. What we are doing is compromisiong by allowing
exceptions, but only those conferences that are currently in
existence and for which the current participants and fws feel
that they need an exception. I think it is a workable compromise.
I think I learned a different grammar than rcurl. I learned that
you *never* use "that" for people. I larned that you should use
"who" even in a restrictive sense, when it is for people.
Possibly I learned wrong. It was a long time ago. I think even if
it haa grammar problems it reads better than with rcurl's
nitpicks, but I don't feel strongly. I am more interested in
voting on a nongrammatical but binding resolution than arguing
over it some more.
I wouldn't mind if valerie pulled the teeth she inserted, but I
wouldn't vote against it if she doesn't, either.
|