|
Grex > Coop12 > #57: Proposal: Users shall be able to withdraw their text | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 168 responses total. |
krj
|
|
response 88 of 168:
| 
Nov 13 13:36 UTC 2001 |
Mmm, how does one define "response 0"?
|
jp2
|
|
response 89 of 168:
|
Nov 13 14:29 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
scott
|
|
response 90 of 168:
|
Nov 13 14:51 UTC 2001 |
It's probably a moot point, unless we start allowing non-fws to kill entire
items.
|
gull
|
|
response 91 of 168:
|
Nov 13 14:55 UTC 2001 |
Re #87: Wouldn't the item text ("response 0") just show up
as "<expurgated and scribbled>", and the item header and all the other
responses remain?
|
jp2
|
|
response 92 of 168:
|
Nov 13 15:18 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
mary
|
|
response 93 of 168:
|
Nov 13 16:17 UTC 2001 |
Shouldn't the author be allowed to likewise remove whatever title he
or she gave the item? Afterall, he or she owns those words.
|
krj
|
|
response 94 of 168:
|
Nov 13 16:23 UTC 2001 |
Backtalk allows that.
|
krj
|
|
response 95 of 168:
|
Nov 13 16:25 UTC 2001 |
Revised revision:
Grex conference users shall be able to withdraw the
responses they have entered from further public view.
Users are currently able to remove text they have posted from the
conferencing system, but a copy is saved in a particular file which is
readable by everyone. This proposal will be implemented by making that
file readable only by the Grex staff.
|
flem
|
|
response 96 of 168:
|
Nov 13 17:03 UTC 2001 |
|
remmers
|
|
response 97 of 168:
|
Nov 13 17:16 UTC 2001 |
|
other
|
|
response 98 of 168:
|
Nov 13 17:37 UTC 2001 |
As written, the proposal specifically does not address the removal of
*text* reposted in a separate response by another user. It only
addresses *responses* entered by the user withdrawing them.
|
krj
|
|
response 99 of 168:
|
Nov 13 18:05 UTC 2001 |
Correct, that was the major change I made in the first sentence
from the original wording.
Issues about text posted by someone other than the author get pushed
into the still evolving copyright discussion.
|
other
|
|
response 100 of 168:
|
Nov 13 18:25 UTC 2001 |
As it should be.
|
mary
|
|
response 101 of 168:
|
Nov 14 00:56 UTC 2001 |
If an item is linked, and someone doesn't want their responses
in that conference, then their recourse is to remove their
text from all versions, right? I assume we aren't going to
make it harder to link items?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 102 of 168:
|
Nov 14 19:03 UTC 2001 |
I was under the impression that linked items were a single copy, so a
response expurgated from the Agora item would be expurgated from the
Coop item too.
The "problem" is when repsonses are copied from one item into #0 of a new
item, as is often done with interesting 'drift', and then expurgated from
the original item. The original author can't expurgate the new author's
copy.
Such is life. Not being able to remove the second copy is no argument for
keeping the censor log open, nor for removing the expurgate command.
|
krj
|
|
response 103 of 168:
|
Nov 15 05:02 UTC 2001 |
So are we ready to take this to a vote? We need to start today or tomorrow so
we can clear the vote software before the Board election on 1 December;
otherwise we probably have to wait until January, since I don't think
we should try to run a policy election over Christmas.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 104 of 168:
|
Nov 15 05:06 UTC 2001 |
I'm satisfied with the proposal's text.
I just reread #101 and realised I misread it the first time. That is the
current situation, and this proposal does not address it all: response
authors have NO control over the linking of items.
|
remmers
|
|
response 105 of 168:
|
Nov 15 09:54 UTC 2001 |
If #95 is your final wording, I can set up the vote software and
start the voting tonight.
(It would be possible for this policy vote and the board election
to be running at the same time, but it would be cleaner and probably
less confusing to the electorate if they don't overlap.)
|
krj
|
|
response 106 of 168:
|
Nov 15 21:13 UTC 2001 |
Regis Remmers: "Is that your *final* wording?" :)
On, "Who Wants To Be A Mathom Millionaire?"
Yes, let's start voting on the wording in resp:95 tonight.
Thanks.
|
carson
|
|
response 107 of 168:
|
Nov 15 22:45 UTC 2001 |
Funny that you should mention "mathom."
|
remmers
|
|
response 108 of 168:
|
Nov 16 03:38 UTC 2001 |
It's now 10:30pm, I've had a super-long day at work, and I just finished
packing for an early flight to California for which I must get up at
3:45am. Being exhausted, I'd like to postpone setting up the vote
software until Monday when I return. That means the policy vote will
overlap with the board election by a couple of days, but that no
problem technically -- the software is capable of handling both votes
at the same time.
I've already discussed the delay with Ken, and it's okay with him.
|
remmers
|
|
response 109 of 168:
|
Nov 20 00:43 UTC 2001 |
Okay, voting is now enabled for this proposal. Type "vote" or "proposal"
(without the quotes, of course) at a standard Unix prompt, or "!vote" or
"!proposal" at most other prompts, to enter the voting booth. Once there,
you can cast a ballot or opt to bail out without voting. You can also
re-run the program anytime to change your vote.
Anyone can vote, but only the votes of qualified voting members will be
counted.
The voting period for member proposals is 10 days. The polls will close
at the end of the day on Thursday, November 29. (So this vote won't
overlap the board election after all, even with the slightly delayed
start.)
|
janc
|
|
response 110 of 168:
|
Nov 20 01:40 UTC 2001 |
My vote is cast in the cause of truth and justice.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 111 of 168:
|
Nov 20 01:58 UTC 2001 |
Well, I can echo the first four words, but I'm not convinced of the
prepositional phrase. ;)
|
mary
|
|
response 112 of 168:
|
Nov 20 10:04 UTC 2001 |
Sorry, Jan, I don't see much "truth" involved with being able to
say whatever then withdrawing it. Staff will be put in charge of
figuring out the justice part. Yuck.
I voted NO.
|