|
Grex > Coop13 > #82: Member proposal restricting staff's ability to delete conference items. |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 18 new of 108 responses total. |
tod
|
|
response 91 of 108:
| 
Feb 8 18:11 UTC 2004 |
Items almost invariably attract a bit of drift. This proposal would be
inviting abuse by the authors much like Grex staff by not restoring vandalized
items invites abuse by popcorn
|
gull
|
|
response 92 of 108:
|
Feb 8 18:49 UTC 2004 |
Re resp:85: The problem with that proposal, as I see it, is if it were
in place it would not have made it clear that staff don't have the right
to remove items on their own initiative. Therefore, Valerie would still
have been able to claim that she wasn't acting against any set policy.
I just don't feel voting *down* a proposal sets a clear policy.
|
gull
|
|
response 93 of 108:
|
Feb 8 18:57 UTC 2004 |
I'm going to borrow a quote from janc's response 140 in item 106, about
Valerie's deletion of her items, to show why I feel this proposal is
necessary:
"She thought it was obviously within her rights and expected others to
think so too."
Obviously this is a point of policy that has to be clarified, one way or
another. Valerie believed that, as a staff member, she could delete her
personal items and that this was perfectly legitimate. If you believe
that's wrong, you should consider voting yes on my proposal. If you
believe that this is a power staff should have, then vote no.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 94 of 108:
|
Feb 8 19:47 UTC 2004 |
I think you miss the point, gull: she thought she had the right AS AUTHOR
to delete the items she had entered. AS STAFF, she ASSISTED the author
in accomplishing the author's desires. Similarly, she thought that jep
AS AUTHOR had the right to delete his items.
The only mistake was in thinking that authors had the right to remove
their items. My proposal, if properly worded, will clarify the consensus
of the grex members.
I cannot vote for your proposal because it ties the hands of staff without
addressing the real question.
If authors cannot remove their items, then there is no reason for staff
to think they can remove items for the authors, either.
|
naftee
|
|
response 95 of 108:
|
Feb 8 20:04 UTC 2004 |
Unless they're on a power trip
|
mary
|
|
response 96 of 108:
|
Feb 8 21:44 UTC 2004 |
She thought she had the right as an AUTHOR who could use CFADM power
and not worry too much about the fact other staff and board members
were already telling her to slow down.
Let's not rewrite history so soon, please.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 97 of 108:
|
Feb 8 21:51 UTC 2004 |
In the case of the second deletion, you are probably right, Mary, but not in
the case of the removal of her own items. Let's not re-write history so soon,
please.
|
mary
|
|
response 98 of 108:
|
Feb 8 21:58 UTC 2004 |
She couldn't delete HER items as the author. She had to invoke
superuser power to get the job done. If she hadn't been in meltdown
mode I suspect she would have asked herself why that was necessary.
Valerie herself has stated she just wanted them gone. Not much else
mattered. Of course, the only way to prove that is to republish
responses she has since scribbled. Would that be okay for me to
do?
|
gull
|
|
response 99 of 108:
|
Feb 8 22:09 UTC 2004 |
At least two staff members and two board members have expressed strong
objections to this proposal. While I still feel it's important that
Grex set a formal policy on this issue, because I think without it,
we're doomed to another repeat of this whole scandal, I'm a bit hesitant
to do something that would push Grex in a direction that the staff
doesn't want to deal with. The last thing I want to be accused of is
contributing to staff member turnover. So at this point I'm
reconsidering whether to bring this to a vote. I haven't made a
decision yet.
|
tod
|
|
response 100 of 108:
|
Feb 8 22:13 UTC 2004 |
Staff member turnover isn't always a bad thing.
|
mary
|
|
response 101 of 108:
|
Feb 8 22:14 UTC 2004 |
My 2 cents, David. Don't. What happened here with Valerie was an
isolated, rogue event. I suspect we could go on for a very long
time before the personalities and events would come together in
such a way as to provoke a similiar episode.
Staff doesn't need more rules. I'd vote any such motion down.
|
naftee
|
|
response 102 of 108:
|
Feb 8 22:58 UTC 2004 |
mary:
valerie was not "freaking out" when she deleted those baby diary items. Or
at least, all the evidence points to the contrary of that being true
|
aruba
|
|
response 103 of 108:
|
Feb 8 23:29 UTC 2004 |
I agree with what Mary said.
|
boltwitz
|
|
response 104 of 108:
|
Feb 8 23:41 UTC 2004 |
I agree with what aruba said, but disagree with what Mary said.
|
keesan
|
|
response 105 of 108:
|
Feb 8 23:42 UTC 2004 |
Would anyone want to give authors of items the option to delete the item IF
they stated in 0 that they might do so? In other words, people could post
items that might be deleted later, but only if they gave notice to start with.
|
gull
|
|
response 106 of 108:
|
Feb 9 00:13 UTC 2004 |
It just bothers me that valerie apparently broke no rules by doing what
she did. I don't really like the fact that staff can do things like
that on a whim. I guess it's "there oughtta be a law" syndrome.
|
mary
|
|
response 107 of 108:
|
Feb 9 00:20 UTC 2004 |
Not quite, David. More, it's unclear as to whether rules would have
made a difference in Valerie's actions.
I think Grex needs to move on. Joe is looking for a way users can
make system policy, giving item authors guidance on what they can
and can't do. This makes more sense to me than putting handcuffs on
staff.
|
gull
|
|
response 108 of 108:
|
Feb 9 01:06 UTC 2004 |
I'm withdrawing this proposal. gelinas has entered one in item:111 that
would accomplish basically the same thing, and has the following
advantages:
- It's more elegantly worded, and clearer, thanks to approaching the
problem from a slightly different angle.
- It doesn't explicitly put limits on staff, and gelinas himself is a
staff member. This avoids the appearance of ordinary members dictating
restrictions on staff, something that was a source of strong opposition
to my proposal. Politically, it's more carefully crafted.
Further discussion should probably shift to item:111.
|