This is a weaker oversight requirement than ensuring that information is accurate, or that more subtle content concerns are managed. If setup properly, scanning diffs to see that there aren't warez, porn, license keys, etc., shouldn't take very long. We're talking about < 30 changed pages per day on average.
The wikidiffs@ list received 77 emails yesterday. That's a *lot* of traffic for a small group to handle reliably. I certainly can't keep up with that.
And, that's with only minimal activity on the wiki. I don't think a centralized group of oversight scales for something the entire ASF would use. I think the oversight belongs with the people are responsible for the content. As projects promote the use of the wiki, the project is responsible for sharing the oversight burden.
To do the above does not require any structural changes. It simply requires that some group be established that watches wiki changes for violations of the above content rules. That group, for now, could be a sub-group under the auspices of the infrastructure PMC.
I'd rather not see the infrastructure committee (or any subset thereof) have to make the determiniation on what is proper or not. Nor, should they be tasked with removal of improper content. We'd just get seen as big bad bullies.
Is that level of oversight sufficient, or do we need for each page to be under the oversight of a project PMC related to that content? The later introduces a whole different set of issues.
I'd much prefer PMCs being responsible for sections of the wiki that their projects are using. And, if the PMC is responsible for general oversight, they also get content oversight for free. =) -- justin
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
