| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 576.1 | you misunderstand my misunderstanding | TFH::MARSHALL | hunting the snark | Mon Dec 07 1987 16:20 | 28 |
|
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Let's see now, I fist asked this question in 561.71, never got an
answer, only restatements of 560.0
And now you create this note which is AGAIN a simple restatement
of 560.0
My confusion is WHY the question was posed as it was. Seems to me
that the ONLY thing that should have been asked AT THAT TIME was
whether to keep WOMANNOTES public or make it private. Only if the
vote resulted in keeping it public should the question have been
asked as to whether to create a NEW, PRIVATE conference.
Because, it seems that by combining the two issues, the moderators
have now locked themselves out of the possibility of creating a
new private conference for those who would like one.
560.last states the the motion has failed, well which one? There
are really two motions in 560.0
/
( ___
) ///
/
|
| 576.2 | | GCANYN::TATISTCHEFF | Lee T | Mon Dec 07 1987 17:21 | 6 |
| re .1
If there would be a second file, the question of whether or not
maggie and bonnie would moderate it is very important to ME at least.
Lee
|
| 576.3 | like banging my head against a wall | TFH::MARSHALL | hunting the snark | Mon Dec 07 1987 17:30 | 12 |
| re .2:
I don't understand how your reply answers ANYTHING I said in .1.
Guess I'm just dense,
/
( ___
) ///
/
|
| 576.5 | | MOSAIC::TARBET | | Mon Dec 07 1987 17:44 | 9 |
| Steve (.1,.3), your point is very well taken. We almost certainly
should have split the issues exactly as you have described. Since I
was the one guilty of drafting the question, I can only plead my hacker
background as extenuation for writing a "spaghetti proposal".
=maggie
(*I* appreciate Lee's support (.2)! (ummmm... Lee, it _was_ support
wasn't it? ;') )
|
| 576.6 | 560.0 was sorted strangely | TFH::MARSHALL | hunting the snark | Mon Dec 07 1987 17:47 | 17 |
| RE .0:
Maybe the question might have been better asked as:
Yes = Make womannotes members-only.
No = Keep womannotes public access, and:
(a) = create a new members-only conference.
(b) = do not create a new conference
(_I_ think it makes a lot more sense this way, but then I would
wouldn't I?)
/
( ___
) ///
/
|
| 576.7 | now that you put it that way... | TFH::MARSHALL | hunting the snark | Mon Dec 07 1987 17:55 | 21 |
| re .5:
WOW an answer at last! BTW, I do agree with Lee about the moderation
of the hypothetical private conference. I hope that I too was not
confusing and implying that "just anyone" should open a private
conference.
Considering that this policy question may have, in the end, generated
more heat than the trashnotes proposal, perhaps it would not be
impossible to repost the question a little differently? Or perhaps
pose JUST the question of creating a new, private conference?
Or perhaps, it is just me making the most noise and nobody else much
cares?
/
( ___
) ///
/
|
| 576.8 | Anyone ever hear about SET NOTE/TITLE="New Vote"? | VCQUAL::THOMPSON | Noter at large | Tue Dec 08 1987 09:44 | 9 |
|
RE: .0 People can change their vote at any time *in the vote topic*!
All they have to do is read their vote reply and use the SET NOTE/TITLE
command. People can change the title to *their own* reply or Note
at any time. Moderator privilege is only required to change some
elses title.
Alfred
|