response 535 of 624:

Feb 3 01:36 UTC 1997

I think just having the Intro conf available to unregistered users is
preferable to Valerie's compromise.  Give all fw's co-fw status intheIntro
conf...or anew similar conf.  This way they can link inany items fromtheir
confs without it beinganyone else's decision.  Simply state that
each current conf is asked to contributeitems to thisconf.  This way every
confwill have items that are available forunregistered reading, but only
selected items.

This would be a fair solution as long as every fw has the ability to link
tothis conf.

response 537 of 624:

Feb 3 07:06 UTC 1997

Steve's reason is my reason for wanting open conferences: there will be
more participants in the 'subject' conferences (which are the majority,
and rather underpopulated now).

Given the turmoil that surrounds the "compromise", I'd support *starting
out* with making only the intro cf open to unregistered web access.
However I see no reason to give other fws linking access - robh has a
concept for a good balance of topics, frequency of posting and killing,
etc. The broth would be spoiled with more cooks. 

response 539 of 624:

Feb 3 15:34 UTC 1997

I just think a lot ofpeople only read two or three confs and dont realize how
underpopulated a lot of the other confs are and how hard it is to start a new
conf.  Omni and I started the movies (cinema) conf two weeks ago and so far
we've had what, four people contribute?  five?  We need people to read these
confs before they will contribute, it doesnt work the other way around.

To me Grex is about open conferencing.  If I want to write poems and only
circulate them among certain groups of people, I start a mailing list.  If
I want to post ina public arena so I can be part of something anyone can take
part in, I conf!

I respect Jenna and others wish to limit the readership of their posts. 
Start a poetry mailing list or a sex issues mailing list.  That would be
great, because certain issues shouldbe talked about in controlled
environments.  But let the conferencing enviroment remain stable and open.
It is too important a part of what Grex is.

response 541 of 624:

Feb 4 00:27 UTC 1997

Richard - stability is keeping ti the way it's always been.
You're absolutely right, it needs stability. And that's exactly
waht it's got. I'd be perfectly happy to havenjust intro open.
I think about six different people have suggested this at various
points in time. It never seems to get heard.
But it would show off the conferences, at their best, even,
in great variety, without getting anybody i know of's 
temper up.

response 543 of 624:

Feb 4 04:14 UTC 1997

<<none of the six were IC ppl, fwiw>>
  
and snafu's idea for a web conference (perhaps dual-named with intro.cf)
is another casually ignored concept.

response 545 of 624:

Feb 4 23:12 UTC 1997

Is there a way to make it so just the first ten or twenty items in every conf
are open to unregistered readers?  This would be  a workagble compromise
if so, because it would allow such readers to have a reasonable taqste of
every conf, and would also allow for much p[rivacy because they wouldnt be
able to read later posts.

response 547 of 624:

Feb 6 01:09 UTC 1997

I would not be happy with such a limited approach to unregistered reading.
There are items in a number of different conferences that I would like to
point to. I can put pointers to them where people can actually see them if
unregistered reading is allowed. It will create more interest. It will be good
for Grex. I do not intend to vote for any such limited openness policy. I will
ask for complete openness if we try to move in that direction. I think we will
all be happier if we compromise, and I would encourage Valerie to stick to
the course, and submit the compromise wording.

response 549 of 624:

Feb 6 19:59 UTC 1997

I dont think a compromise that waters down the actual policy being proposed,
and upsets as many people as it calms down, is a good idea.  There has, from
what I can tell, always been a consensus to try this.  

Instead of having a member vote right now, why not have the board vote to
authorize unregistered reading for all confs for a **90 day trial period**,
after which it can be agreed a member vote will take place regarding permanent
policy.  Any compromises can be considered then.  This would take it off the
table for now and let everyone breathe a little and see how this works.  
Valerie has made a valiant effort, but it is difficult to come up with an
airtight compromise in a short period of time, particularly when the effects of
the policy can only be assumed.  Until this is at least tried, all the stated
fears are really just **assumptions**  The worst kind of laws we have in this
country are the ones that are cobbled together in a rush to satisfy everyone.

This debate has gone on long enough (nearly 550 responses!)  Lets have a brief
trial run, take notes and reconsider this down the road a bit.

response 551 of 624:

Feb 6 22:14 UTC 1997

"Those who like laws and sausages shouldn't watch either being made."
--Bismarck

response 553 of 624:

Feb 7 18:06 UTC 1997

Aside from a few wording/style nits, it's just fine as proposals go.  I'll
be voting against it, regardless.

response 555 of 624:

Feb 7 19:32 UTC 1997

(FInal nit attack....): would you acceptr saying "....anybody creating an
account...." and "...by people not having accounts....", in place of using
that relative pronoun? It avoids introducing pronouns at all.

The phrase "As always" is not needed, as the sentence states the policy
without it. And (sigh)...too many 'thises'...oh well. I'll vote for it while
holding my grammatical nose.

response 557 of 624:

Feb 8 02:22 UTC 1997

I *like* this version a lot because of the new #3!  I'll vote for it.
Quick--let's have the vote before everybody changes his/her/their/its
mind again...8-)

response 559 of 624:

Feb 8 13:56 UTC 1997

I have a question - does this new version now mean that any
new conference could decide to be closed to unregistered
reading?