|
Grex > Coop9 > #27: Motion: To allow anonymous reading via Backtalk | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 624 responses total. |
jenna
|
|
response 550 of 624:
| 
Feb 6 22:00 UTC 1997 |
I'd rathe rnot leave it in the hands of the board, even for 90 days...
and I toally diagree with ZRichard about the laws of this country.
|
dpc
|
|
response 551 of 624:
|
Feb 6 22:14 UTC 1997 |
"Those who like laws and sausages shouldn't watch either being made."
--Bismarck
|
valerie
|
|
response 552 of 624:
|
Feb 7 13:49 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
albaugh
|
|
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.
|
raven
|
|
response 554 of 624:
|
Feb 7 18:35 UTC 1997 |
I really like the wording of this proposal as I think it gives all sides what
they want, bravo. If it doesn't pass, however, it seems like we might have
to tun two simultanious votes, one that would just open up the intro conf
to unregistered users, and one that would open all confs to unregistered
users. <sigh>
|
rcurl
|
|
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.
|
richard
|
|
response 556 of 624:
|
Feb 7 22:39 UTC 1997 |
The flip flop on #3 is REALLY bad...it is going to create a bureacratic mess,
because confs may seek to change their status back and forth from time to
time, based on who is the fw and what the prevailing sentiements are.
Grex needs to have a STABLE conferencing environment. It does NOT need
confs being able to randomly decide from one moment to the next who may
access it and who may not. to the next. These changes make it clear that
this is no longer a compromise, but a *complete* capitulation to one side
of teh argument.
Not to mention the headaches this is going to give the cfadmin or whatever
staff gets burdened with teh requests to open or close confs to
unregistered readers. AND the fact that it will make it muchmore
difficult for other fw's to know for sure which confs are oopen aand which
are not. What you will end up with is fw's linking from closed confs, in
which case the proposal also calls for those f'wss to be stripped of their
fw status.
This is the worst wording yet of this proposal. It is anti-grex and
will irrevocably weaken the conferencing setup here. If this is the only
way we can have unregistered reading here, it is not worth it. Valerie,
you were a founder here, you were in on the decision to have all grex
confs be oopen, to disallow confs to decide that for themselves. Why was
that logical then and not now? What has changed? ? nOr were you in
dissent at the time of that decision? I think having all confs have the
same access policies has worked well here. Why change now?
|
dpc
|
|
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-)
|
srw
|
|
response 558 of 624:
|
Feb 8 07:56 UTC 1997 |
This proposal is worth voting for. If it passes, I doubt there will be any
massive flip-flopping. If it is a serious enough problem, we'll amend it. I
really don't think we'll need to, though. I get the strong feeling that there
are just a very small number of conferences that are holding out to deny
unregistered reading.
|
mary
|
|
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?
|
valerie
|
|
response 560 of 624:
|
Feb 8 14:27 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 561 of 624:
|
Feb 8 17:10 UTC 1997 |
Re #554: you can't have simultaneous votes - at least according to RRO
(and common sense). If voted upon consecutively, the second vote would
be either moot or superceding.
|
e4808mc
|
|
response 562 of 624:
|
Feb 8 18:38 UTC 1997 |
I'm with remmers on this.
Just vote "no".
|
richard
|
|
response 563 of 624:
|
Feb 8 19:47 UTC 1997 |
I still dont see the logic in this. Why is allowing confs to decide if
unregistered readers can access okay but not allowing them to decide all
access issues okay? If you are going to say that in allother instances confs
cannot decide who may access theirconf, it is hypocritical to say they can
in this instance.
And I dissagree with SRW that a bad law is okay if few people are going take
advantage of it. Thats really unethical.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 564 of 624:
|
Feb 8 20:03 UTC 1997 |
You all belong in a legislature. I hope you appreciate the fun of writing
anything legal. ;)
|
richard
|
|
response 565 of 624:
|
Feb 8 20:18 UTC 1997 |
I suppose SRW would have said the holocaust was okay if it only targeted
red-headed albino jews. After all, if only one or five people were killed
instead of a million, it wouldnt really matter right?
If a proposal is flawed, it is flawed.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 566 of 624:
|
Feb 8 22:09 UTC 1997 |
I don't think this proposal will kill anyone. In real life we make
compromises all the time, hoping for "the greatest good for the greatest
number" - but that *also* means that there will be some problems for a
few. It is not possible to function without this happening. For example,
the current policy "disenfranchises" (from reading Grex) the idle web
surfers. Would we have adopted the *current* policy if the new policy was
how we always did things? Some arguments against doing that would be like
some of those being made now to not open access.
|
richard
|
|
response 567 of 624:
|
Feb 8 22:48 UTC 1997 |
I just think the policies here need to be consistent. If we let ALL
conferences have the option of being open or closed to any status of
user, then FW's could admit anyone they choose, with the only proviso
being that once admitted, a user cannot later be kicked out. If *this*
was the policy, then letting unregistered usage being optional would
make sense.
Currently, Grex does not allow fw's of confs to make such decisions to
be closed, so the only way to remain consistent would be to also
disallow the confs to be closed to unregistered users as well.
|
tsty
|
|
response 568 of 624:
|
Feb 9 07:32 UTC 1997 |
ummm, what would have to happen if a conference with links decides
to go back to normal (un-read by non-grex accounts)?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 569 of 624:
|
Feb 9 07:39 UTC 1997 |
You seem to have forgotten that this proposed policy has no effect at all
upon registered users (so the fw does *not* have options for "any status
of user) and that unregistered web readers gain no status by looking
in on conferences so they must simply accept the system as they find it.
If a cf gets closed to such, some may not longer be able to read it, but
they are hardly "kicked out", since they were idle readers in the first
place. (I don't know how much information about Grex unregistered readers
will be 'forced' to see, but they could be told that cfs accessible to them
may come and go but if they want to continue reading any that go, they can
just register (in fewer words, preferably).
|
remmers
|
|
response 570 of 624:
|
Feb 9 13:29 UTC 1997 |
Re #568: Good question.
Sigh. With #3 there, I'll probably be voting against this.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 571 of 624:
|
Feb 9 19:04 UTC 1997 |
TS (#568) slipped in.
|
valerie
|
|
response 572 of 624:
|
Feb 9 20:12 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
richard
|
|
response 573 of 624:
|
Feb 9 20:46 UTC 1997 |
#572...putting the compromise in place without resolving those questions would
be pointless. The compromise either works or doesnt work based on the answers
to those questions.
I reiterate that so few users oppose the basic policy that it is simply better
and simpler to say that all confs should be open to unregistered readers.
Period. Nobureacracy. No rules and contingincies. There surely were more
people opposed to grex's original open access policy than opposed to this and
grex has worked just fine witht hat.
|
dpc
|
|
response 574 of 624:
|
Feb 10 00:22 UTC 1997 |
Vote! Vote! We want a vote!
|