Best to Not Use Members Only Section of Forum For Time Sensitive Topics

3 posts / 0 new
Last post
Joseph Lofthouse
Joseph Lofthouse's picture
Best to Not Use Members Only Section of Forum For Time Sensitive Topics

It seems to me that posts to the "Members Only" section of this forum require some sort of moderator approval before being posted. Obtaining moderator approval is  a slow process, so it appears  like the forum is broken and not working, even though it may be functioning as designed. This section of the forum doesn't impose moderation so conversations can occur quicker. Requiring moderator approval would also make censorship easier to hide. Also, we have to be logged in to see the contents of the 'Members Only' forum. I don't know about you, but I hate logging into sites, when I'm just checking to see what's happening.

Therefore, I'm suggesting that we use the more open sections of the forum for discussions about the upcoming election.

 

 

Daniel MacPhee
Daniel MacPhee's picture
Seems to be the case...

Thanks for the suggestion, Joseph.  I hadn't even realized there was a separate 'members' forum until a couple days ago because I never bothered logging in.  I had checked out the stale public forum archive previously and assumed that was everything.  I appreciated your comment regarding purity and the elections in the 'members' forum and submitted a long reply yesterday afternoon, but it still hasn't shown up. 

To recap that post: I would like to have the flexibility to include more than just 'pure' heirloom seed in the GSN database.  While I place a great value on preserving heirloom varieties in pure form, one of the main reasons I am interested in preserving them is as a pool of genetic diversity that I can draw upon to develop strains that suit my needs as a grower--my climate, my soils, my farming practices, my storage conditions, my culinary tastes, etc etc.  Being able to select for particular traits is why I started saving seeds in the first place, because many seed companies don't produce seed in a climate or farming context anywhere near resembling mine. 

Anyway, some folks would probably like to try some of the strains I've selected, and I know I would love to be able to use the GSN database to try varieties that other people have been working on so that we can all build on each other's efforts.  That said, I want to make sure that there is a way to be clear about what is being shared.  Just because I like landraces and other people's experimental crosses, doesn't mean that I am permissive of sloppy isolations for crops that are listed as 'pure'.  I just want clarity in listings.  I would like to see both pure heirlooms as well as the 'impure' varieties that Joseph describes (and also locally adapted strains, unstable breeding lines, landraces, etc etc).  I'd love for the GSN to function as a framework that facilities seed sharing in whatever form among members (*provided there is clarity in listings!).  I know it adds complication for the database, but I bet we can figure out a good solution that doesn't exclude all of the exciting and valuable work that many of us are doing with our own selections and conventional breeding projects.

So, that is my opinion.  If the board/membership decides that purity requirement can't be changed, I will be disappointed, but I will definitely still have a lot to give and gain from the network.  I just suspect many of us will just create an ad hoc sharing network to fulfil our 'impure' interests elsewhere. :)

Best,

Daniel MacPhee

 

wabonsall
Joseph's 1/2 15:37 post

I agree with Joseph that the review policy is problematic for all the reasons he gives. While we absolutely do need to have clearly defined guidelines for what is allowed on the Forum (no personal attacks, improper language, etc.), those items which need to be removed or edited immediately are probably few and far between, and it might be a better compromise to have ALL posts go up immediately, and Ashley review them ASAP, within say, 24 hrs. A couple of people have suggested that anyone viewing something they believe is censorable could bring it to Ashley's attention, in case she hadn't caught it yet, thus getting inappropriate comments removed more quickly, while allowing the freer flow of appropriate communication.

If we have such immediate access to the Forum, there would be no need for people to use the Members Only part for time-sensitive posts; rather we might have the General Forum (discussion of seed-saving issues, etc.) open to anyone at all, and have an "inner sanctum" (portal?) for organisational business like elections and policy discusion, which any listed member can access with a password, and which would contain direct and immediately viewable posts, all reviewed by Ashley ASAP. I believe it would also be less confusing and more easily navigated.