|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 106 responses total. |
remmers
|
|
response 63 of 106:
| 
Feb 3 12:43 UTC 1997 |
No it's not. They might have forgotten the rule, or not realized
that the conference they were linking from was "closed".
|
richard
|
|
response 64 of 106:
|
Feb 3 15:50 UTC 1997 |
This rule is unneccesary because in most confs on grex, including the two
I helped start, there are multiple fw's. This is *why* its a good idea to
have more than one fair witness per conf actually. I may be headstrong
but I wouldnt go off on a political agenda unless the other fw agreed with
me, because the conference is a shared creation.
My *threat* (ifyou want to call it that, I dont) was that if a discussion
was really interesting, I reserved the right to enter a *new* item in an
open conf and copy over the content. So even unregistered users could
read it.
|
jenna
|
|
response 65 of 106:
|
Feb 4 00:29 UTC 1997 |
I don't know... i think cut and pasting the content so obvioulsy is rpetty
slimy
Richard...
|
orinoco
|
|
response 66 of 106:
|
Feb 6 23:03 UTC 1997 |
Perhaps this has been discussed elsewhere, but I have given up on following
the main debate item on this topic...
How feasible would it be t write a program of some sort to act as a
'conference cop'--in other words, whenever an item is linked, to check whether
it's being linked out of a closed conference, and if it is, to stop it being
linked? This would keep the cfadm from having to exercise personal judgemetnt
on the maliciousness, etc., of an illegal linking, by preventing an illegal
linking from happening.
Alternately, how about this? If a cfadm finds an illegal linking, they remove
the item from the conference it was illegaly linked to, and alert someone more
qualified to decide whether or not to remove the offenders' fw status (staff
as a whole, the board, or whoever that deciision would rest with).
|
remmers
|
|
response 67 of 106:
|
Feb 7 08:19 UTC 1997 |
Except for the staff conference, there aren't any "closed"
conferences on Grex. I assume what you're really talking about
is not-readable-without-login-id's conferences.
Yeah, it's been discussed elsewhere. We're not in a position to
enforce it with software because it require modifying Picospan,
which we don't have source to. Personally, I find alternative
two repugnant.
|
davel
|
|
response 68 of 106:
|
Feb 7 10:59 UTC 1997 |
Why twice, John?
|
remmers
|
|
response 69 of 106:
|
Feb 7 13:12 UTC 1997 |
?
|
davel
|
|
response 70 of 106:
|
Feb 7 21:09 UTC 1997 |
> Yeah, it's been discussed elsewhere. We're not in a position to
> enforce it with software because it require modifying Picospan,
> which we don't have source to. Personally, I find alternative
> two repugnant.
^^^
|
ryan1
|
|
response 71 of 106:
|
Feb 7 21:28 UTC 1997 |
I've heard time and time again that the source for picospan is not
available. But when Grex upgraded to the Sun4, I heard *EVERYTHING* had
to be recompiled. How can this be? Obviously, picospan must have been
recompiled too?
|
richard
|
|
response 72 of 106:
|
Feb 7 22:45 UTC 1997 |
Valerie is now proposing in item #27 that alllows all confs to be able to
change their accesss policies regarding unregistered reading at any time.
This will cause all kinds of problems for any cfadmin because they will have
to handle recurring requests to open or close this conf or that conf. Also
the proposal calls for removing an fw who links from a closed conf, and since
it is going to be difficult under this plan to even know for sure which confs
are open and which arent, the cfadmin is going to be in the political hotseat.
Forced by policy to remove those fw's who wrongly link, yet having to
arbitrate whether said linking was done by accident .etc
This could make cfadmin one of the least desireable o f all staff positions
IMO.
|
dang
|
|
response 73 of 106:
|
Feb 7 23:51 UTC 1997 |
We have a liscense for the use of a binary version of picospan. Marcus has
the source. He can recompile it for us, but we cannot change it.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 74 of 106:
|
Feb 8 02:25 UTC 1997 |
remmers--why repugnant? It seems that that would be a better alternative than
requiring a lone staff member to decide whether to remove the fw's status.
Why force an individual to make an admittedly very dificult and subjective
decision, when that decision could instead be made by they staff as a whole?
As richard has pointed out, forcing the cfadmins to make this decision alone
would make their jobs very difficult.
|
snafu
|
|
response 75 of 106:
|
Feb 8 05:08 UTC 1997 |
We could put it simply: If the FW doesn't care enough to check whether or not
the conference he's linking from is closed to anonymous readers, he/she
obviously doesn't care enough to make a good FW... Or we could do warnings
"This is your first and only warning... You linked to a closed Conference...
Next time you'll lose your FWship..." something like that...
|
mary
|
|
response 76 of 106:
|
Feb 8 13:51 UTC 1997 |
For those of you who never ever had the chance to
see how M-net evolved - no sweat - you can watch
it all on replay right here.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 77 of 106:
|
Feb 8 14:39 UTC 1997 |
<sigh> You'll notice that in #74 I was asking a question...If there is a
reason why that idea is repugnant, I would like to hear it, rather than just
hearing that it is a Bad Idea. You're right, I've never seen the situation
on M-net first-hand, so I have no way of knowing if this might lead to
something like that. Please, tell me.
|
richard
|
|
response 78 of 106:
|
Feb 8 19:53 UTC 1997 |
#76...mary, you mean how mnet DE-volved.
If an fw doesnt admit he/she linked deliberately it becomes an issue of one
person's word versus another. I REALLY dont think staff ought tobe involved
in fair witness politics at all. The conference system is supposed tobe
separate from system issues, and staff is supposed tobe involved onnly in
system issues.
|
snafu
|
|
response 79 of 106:
|
Feb 8 21:33 UTC 1997 |
Is it politics? If you linked it, you did it deliberatly... It's not a case
of linking deliberatly, but a case of "did you check to see if it was a closed
conference?"
|
remmers
|
|
response 80 of 106:
|
Feb 9 13:37 UTC 1997 |
Re #74: What I find repugnant is the idea of having to have
"conference police" at all. Grex used to be touted as "the system
with few rules". We're losing that concept, alas.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 81 of 106:
|
Feb 9 15:45 UTC 1997 |
I see...That does make sense, and ideally we would not need 'conference
police' at all, but it seems to me that, because of the distinction betweeen
anonymously readable conferences and non-anonymously-readable conferences that
would be created if this anonymous reading thing goes through, *something*
is needed to keep items from being intentionally linked from a closed to an
open conference. Ideally, we would be able to trust fw's to use their linking
priveliges wisely, but being as some people have already threatened to link
material out of 'closed' conferences, this may not be the case.
A techie question--once an item has been linked, can that link be undone?
I am actually beginning to understand better the perspective of those who
would prefer a restrictive universal policy on anonymous access to a more
permissive policy like the one being considered. Conferences having different
rules as to anonymous access does seem to open quite a can of worms...
And thank you, remmers, for explaining yourself.
|
omni
|
|
response 82 of 106:
|
Feb 9 16:12 UTC 1997 |
As far as I see this, this is much ado about nothing, and I'll tell you why.
We have one closed conf, called staff, which less than .001% of us belong
and can read. If you cannot read it, how can you link from it? You cannot.
Therefore this whole mess of linking from closed confs is a waste of time.
As I have said before, my f-w style is to use as little power as possible.
Should the heavens open and I am selected for this august post, I shall
execute my duties as cfadm in very much the same style.
|
void
|
|
response 83 of 106:
|
Feb 9 18:59 UTC 1997 |
omni, i think people are using "closed" to mean "conferences not readable
by unregistered users."
|
rcurl
|
|
response 84 of 106:
|
Feb 9 19:24 UTC 1997 |
I don't think that "conference police" would be so repugnant if it could
be handled entirely by software. Isn't that interesting....?
|
valerie
|
|
response 85 of 106:
|
Feb 9 20:24 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
richard
|
|
response 86 of 106:
|
Feb 9 21:42 UTC 1997 |
query: What if the item in question linked from a closed conf was one I
entered? That is the most likely case where I might use my fw-status in
another conf to link such an item. I dont feel that just because an fw has
decided to close his/her conf, that gives them the right to dictate to me
which confs I may choose to place my own item in.
To me that goes against the very purpose of an open-access system and is
tantamount to system supported censorship. I think Valerie should re-write
the paragraph, if it mustbe included, to say that items from closed confs may
be linked to open confs if the author requests it. I dont want to
re-enter items or .etc If I post something worthwhile, I want to be able
to link or have it linked where I feel apppropriate.
|
davel
|
|
response 87 of 106:
|
Feb 9 23:40 UTC 1997 |
You might have entered it, Richard, but others responding to it in a "closed"
conference (in this sense) should be able to feel secure that it's not going
to be linked elsewhere; and IMO they shouldn't even have to worry about
whether that header, now scrolled 8 responses off the screen, said "linked
item". I oppose having *any* conferences closed to anonymous reading, myself,
but if we're going to do it, and do it for the kinds of reasons people have
raised for doing it, it's really obnoxious to think of requiring participants
to keep track on an item-by-item basis. It's not "your own item" in a sense
that gives you an unlimited right to handle *other* people's responses. May
I suggest that you learn to use the extract command, or cut-&-paste at your
end, if you object to typing your own text in? I really doubt anyone else
would object to your copying your own text - at least, object on the grounds
that it was first posted in a restricted conference.
|
