|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 393 responses total. |
valerie
|
|
response 99 of 393:
| 
Jan 7 06:31 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 100 of 393:
|
Jan 7 06:38 UTC 2004 |
I would be glad to give Valerie permission to delete all my entries on those
items. The items were -diaries- that she allowed other people to read and
(sometimes, when the items weren't frozen) comment on.
We are not talking about censorship here. Valerie didn't remove posts that
she disagreed with. In fact, it would be pretty hilarious if we could edit
and reenter only mynxcat, jp2, and the other complainors' posts. Then
everyone could see how meaningless this attack is.
We're not talking about throttling free speech either. anyone is welcome to
start an item to talk about any issue they like. Valerie didn't keep anyone
from starting new items.
Any FW of a conference could do what Valerie did; it doesn't require
extraordinary root powers.
Attacking Valerie is stupid. What we are grappling with here is our
ever-present balancing act between you-can't-unring-a-bell and the ability
to make amends in some fashion if what you said in an item was something you'd
like to remove from the public record. Not make people forget, just remove
the words from public display.
We voted to allow everyone to make that decision for themselves.
The whole thing would be within our policies and non-controversial if Valerie
eliminated all her responses, and those of us who agreed with her eliminated
ours. We could let mynxcat's immortal words remain on display, along with
anyone else who thought their contribution to the descriptions of Kendra and
Arlo's development processes was significant.
If Valerie were the conf fairwitness, she could have done this without
violating any Grex principles. The only real policy violation came when she
did it herself, without having the FW involved in the decision.
Give it a break. Troublemakers are stirring the pot again. We are rehashing
the same issues of "permanently engraved versus able to be erased"
I think we have come to a reasonable balance by allowing scribbled to be truly
hidden, and allowing FWs to make decisions on an item-by-item basis.
If people want to remake either of those decisions, then let's discuss the
policies. If people want to cause a fuss, then don't pretend it's some big
personal affront or some heroic support of freedom of speech. Fuss about the
policies we have. Because Valerie's actions were all allowable under current
policy.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 101 of 393:
|
Jan 7 06:40 UTC 2004 |
Hot Keyboards! Both 98 and 99 slipped in.
|
cross
|
|
response 102 of 393:
|
Jan 7 06:50 UTC 2004 |
Just for the record, I wouldn't be so sure there *aren't* copies
floating around. I don't know if anyone did (and I don't have one),
but as you know, it would have been technically possible for anyone on
grex to create a copy if they really wanted to, and there are probably
still copies on backup tape. I always take the position that anything
I write on the net will never go away. I've already given up any hope
of attaining an elected position as a result. :-)
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 103 of 393:
|
Jan 7 09:23 UTC 2004 |
Exactly. I learned the hard way that what you put out there can be
scrutinized, copied, and satirized at will. Also-- I'm sure it's
worse outside Grex... I've seen some hints of horror on weblogs-- but
of course, people get much more scarily candid then they do here.
resp:100 Point taken... discuss the policies. Whining and bellyaching
and attacking people isn't going to get a lot. It might breed
resentment, distrust, apathy, hurt feelings-- any of the above-- all
of above-- but it probably won't change a lot.
|
remmers
|
|
response 104 of 393:
|
Jan 7 11:37 UTC 2004 |
I don't have a lot of time to respond right now, so I'll just reiterate
what I said earlier: Valerie's earlier assertion to the contrary
notwithstanding, it has NEVER been Grex policy to allow authors to
delete their own items. Had it ever been proposed as a policy, I would
have opposed it, on the grounds that it grants people censorship rights
over OTHER PEOPLE'S WORDS. I feel that that is contrary to the free
speech principles that Grex supposedly stands for.
I'm very much in agreement with Dan Cross's #96.
|
remmers
|
|
response 105 of 393:
|
Jan 7 11:41 UTC 2004 |
I'll add that, like Dan, I'm a staff member. There is NOT a concensus
among staff on this issue.
|
jp2
|
|
response 106 of 393:
|
Jan 7 13:24 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
keesan
|
|
response 107 of 393:
|
Jan 7 13:38 UTC 2004 |
Do any of the people who posted in Valerie's baby item want their responses
restored?
|
mary
|
|
response 108 of 393:
|
Jan 7 13:55 UTC 2004 |
Yes, I do.
|
naftee
|
|
response 109 of 393:
|
Jan 7 13:55 UTC 2004 |
re 99
>If I was a user without staff privileges,
> at this point I would contact a staffer for help. I would have explained
> to the staffer that I no longer wanted my baby diary to be public
<snip>
> And, as a staffer receiving
> that request, I would have deleted the items in a heartbeat.
So now you're saying that your opinion would (and should) be the one adopted
by all staff members. Wake up; some of the current staff have objected.
Don't assume that just because you are a staff member that your opinion
somehow magically becomes the same as your peers.
|
gull
|
|
response 110 of 393:
|
Jan 7 14:32 UTC 2004 |
Re resp:99:
"Well... actually any discussion of changing PicoSpan is moot, since
there's no legal way we could get changes made to it, because of the way
its ownership is all tangled up with the collapse of the Vancouver stock
exchange and NETI and whatever all else."
That doesn't mean the subject is moot. It could be implemented in
Backtalk, or someone could create an external command (much like the
"export" command.) Either one would give users the same right you've
already claimed for yourself -- the ability to delete their items at
will, without having to offer a reason to anyone else or beg a staff member.
|
anderyn
|
|
response 111 of 393:
|
Jan 7 14:32 UTC 2004 |
I entered quite a bit in the baby diary and I don't care that she deleted my
"deathless words". Whoop dee doo. They only meant something in the context
of the diary.
|
naftee
|
|
response 112 of 393:
|
Jan 7 14:33 UTC 2004 |
Hah, now it remains to see janc's opinion of the matter.
|
other
|
|
response 113 of 393:
|
Jan 7 14:44 UTC 2004 |
I have a radical suggestion.
I believe that taking this action represented a lapse in judgement
on the part of Valerie, and ultimately, a (relatively minor)
compromise of the stated values of Grex.
Therefore, and particularly in light of Valerie's ambivalence toward
the notion of remaining on staff -- which I feel presents the most
significant risk of harm to Grex -- I would like to suggest that
Valerie be relieved of staff responsibility, including root, but
that she be allowed continued access to the staff conference and
mailing list (if she so desires), so that effectively she will be in
a staff-emeritus status. This way, she will still be in a position
to provide other staff the confidential benefits of her expertise
and knowledge, but she will no longer feel obligated to spend large
quantities of time performing services for an organization to which
she no longer apparently feels committed.
This may seem harsh, but as far as I'm concerned, though Valerie's
value as a resource is quite significant, her value as root staff is
compromised by her stated ambivalence about it.
I do not think this action represents a bow to the trouble-makers
and antagonists, or a punishment to Valerie, but I think it does
responsibly address both the concerns about actions perceived as
inappropriate (whether or not they in fact are) and Valerie's own
need to focus on making her living and supporting her family without
the distractions of a largely unappreciative crowd of Grexers riding
her.
|
jp2
|
|
response 114 of 393:
|
Jan 7 14:53 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
valerie
|
|
response 115 of 393:
|
Jan 7 15:43 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 116 of 393:
|
Jan 7 15:51 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
keesan
|
|
response 117 of 393:
|
Jan 7 16:27 UTC 2004 |
I would prefer Valerie remained a staff member and if possible just put back
the responses of Mary and anyone else who wanted their responses put back.
I don't care about my responses. I want to thank Valerie for being the first
and often the only one to answer all the emails I sent to staff. I would be
happy to make a special exception for this particular item deletion. As Jim
points out, parents don't always think clearly ;=). My mother wrote some
pretty embarassing things in her diary about us kids which I would not have
wanted to be made public. (At least it was my brother who had the bedwetting
problem, and not me). Valerie, thanks for sharing with us.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 118 of 393:
|
Jan 7 16:48 UTC 2004 |
With regards to what I read here, looks like if I have something I
said here parodied on mnet or anywhere for that matter, and I didn't
like it, I could go to cfadmin, or staff, or root, and ask them to
delete not only my posts (which is stupid, since I could do that
myself), but also all posts that quoted me verbatim, or made
referenace to what I said, so that there would be no trace left.
Where do you stop then? This is the beginning of censorship.
I'm with remmers and cross on this one.
I understand the issue with the baby diaries. And I understand the
sentiment behind making this an exception. But you make one exception,
and you'll have to make many more.
|
remmers
|
|
response 119 of 393:
|
Jan 7 17:21 UTC 2004 |
I would not be surprised if, under the mistaken impression that
"a user can delete any item that he or she entered" was actual Grex
policy, the staff actually gets requests to delete items in the
Coop conference. And with them, of course, all of the relevant
policy discussion that is and should remain part of the public
record.
Here's something to think about: If the deletion policy becomes
a reality, guess who gets to delete this item - and with it,
a lot of discussion of an important policy issue.
|
jp2
|
|
response 120 of 393:
|
Jan 7 17:27 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 121 of 393:
|
Jan 7 17:29 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
scott
|
|
response 122 of 393:
|
Jan 7 17:47 UTC 2004 |
Re 120: "I seem to recall..." is hardly evidence sufficient for a charge of
"pattern of abuse and censorship".
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 123 of 393:
|
Jan 7 17:47 UTC 2004 |
I'm with Remmers. I think there's a huge distinction between being able to
delete text you entered, and deleting text other people entered. Entering
the item shouldn't give you control over the text of everyone who has
responded to it.
|