Dirk, I can't comment about what is happening on [EMAIL PROTECTED] I was the impetus for closing the list, and shortly thereafter I unsubscribed from it. Rules are rules. Maybe as a general rule, if a discussion doesn't need secrecy, it should be help on community@, since community is now archived in a public place. I believe this is called a "Sunshine policy"
---- your concerns I understand your concerns. I raised these issues with infrastructure@ back during the "Action not words" discussion. I'll try to echo it back, if I have misunderstood, please correct me. As a user of ASF software, I rely on ASF standards being set very high, I was playing devil's advocate with Mr. Oliver when I raised these issues back in December. He was convincing at the time, but, again, you've got some valid concerns. >From what I gather, you are not necessarily opposed to Wiki as a general "idea" - you just want to see it modified slightly to match the merit-based and project-centric work of the foundation. In other words, giving a non-committer the ability to use Wiki is not a problem as long as there is some effective oversight by Wiki administrators. Let me summarize. Issues: 1. Scope/Goals of the Wiki - fostering quality discussion 2. Enforcement/Moderation of the Wiki 3. Accountability Mechanism NOW concern about liability: 1. Does unmoderated public posting affect the corporate shield? Does the ASF have any responsibility to limit access in order to protect the foundation as a larger corporate entity? ---- reponses * To your NOW concern about liablility, that is a valid one. Most importantly, it might be a good idea to put a disclaimer into the footer area of the Wiki sometime today. I believe that this would solve an immediate need while other methods are investigated. I only assume that ASF has some relationship with a lawyer, and it might make some sense to get a lawyer to write a good disclaimer. I believe one of your previous messages on community@ had an interesting idea: http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]&msg No=1166 ( only now, can you refer to past community messages, thank you people! ). You mention that it would be better to require people to have some sort of "identity". In other words, you want people to have some "skin in the game". This seems reasonable, if you think that Wiki activity is a clear and present danger which could expose the foundation to legal action, then it is only sensible that this be fixed before any work goes forward. This is a *real* concern, ASF is a corporation of Delaware. I'M NOT A LAWYER, but ASF corporate status is a huge part of why people can do what they do here. ASF provides a corporate umbrella which limits liability - if you provide assistance to ASF, you can't get sued, only the assets of the Corporation are on the table. That's a good thing, if it is true that some bozo could post illegal content and ruin the ASF, then you've got a point. On the other hand, because ASF hosts the Eyebrowse archive, any individual may send an anonymous message to a mailing list license key and this message is almost instantly published as a web page via Eyebrowse. From that perspective, our email lists are simply another avenue for site content creation. The only difference is that one must have a valid email address in order to subscribe to a mailing list - this "gets to skin in the game". Again, get a lawyer to write a good disclaimer, and let's get some regulations written up. * To your issues 1. Scope/Goals of the Wiki - fostering quality discussion Let's develop a formal proposal and codify this. Here's a start http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?ApacheWikiScopeAndGoals - the content about blogs and personal views may be a little controversial. I think that personal views, criticism of the ASF, are best hosted on other wikis. Those Wikis are in the works, and it is only rational that ASF have no relationship to those Wikis. 2. Enforcement/Moderation of the Wiki There are 3 wiki admins right now. There are a larger number of people who watch the recent changes list. I think that a formal proposal should include a set of rules and regulations regarding moderation and enforcement. It may also be wise to set up a PMC-lite for those people. 3. Accountability Mechanism I believe that this relates to your overriding NOW concern, and it would help to have some sort of accountability mechanism that is anaolgous to the mailing lists. I'm personally neutral on this issue, but if you believe that it is a threat to the corporation, than this is a very big deal. I think that a well written disclaimer coupled with a strong set of enforcement and moderation rules could do the job effectively. -------- Tim O'Brien > -----Original Message----- > From: Dirk-Willem van Gulik [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 4:41 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Wiki - we have a problem :) > > > > Folks, > > I am seeing this weeking discussion reaching conclusions of > sorts. However there is still a significant problem with oversight. > > What I mean here is -not- the ASF cultural thing of having > things validated by your peers; but the oversight of the type > that the ASF as a US incorperated is supposed to maintain. > > In this role's I am not as much concerned with pages going up > which say 'Thou venomed swag-bellied skainsmate!' or other > types of respect lacking community interaction; but > specificaly of the type which gets us in > real-live(tm) trouble; warez, child-porn, list of license keys, etc. > > So unless I hear this group establishing some very clear > policy with respect to WiKi's I will propose to the board > that they go and instruct the infrastructure@ folsk as follows: > > -> No Wiki(s) will be ran under ASF auspicien unless there > > -> is a PMC or similar body who duly provides oversight > to any abuse. > > -> and the infrastructure@ pmc has validated that whatever > access control, metrics and what not are appropriate and > that each resource can clearly have an 'owner'. > > Note that I did not add things such as acceptable use > policies or charters. I leave that to the PMC. > > Though I personally would certainly encourage PMC's wanting a > PMC to think about that; as 'scope' helps to foster quality > discussion. Though simply saying that use should be on topic > or in line with the mission/goal (which usually is firmly > embedded in the resolution which created the PMC in the first > place) helps. > > Note that this is what is effectively happening on the push > based mailing list; moderation, warning being send to > pwersons going off topic and other non appropriate postings, > and a community sense of 'scope'. > > I'd appreciate feedback to solve the 'NOW' problem (not > getting sued by the scientology church or abetting (US) > crime) - and to help me ask the board for the right thing. We > can solve the 'real' issue later. > > Dw > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
