Are we now going to have similar "oversight" over the mailing lists and archives ? If someone posts a pointer to warez or porn on one of the lists - are we going to have to remove it from archives ?
Sorry, but I fail to see the difference between wiki and the mailing lists. Both are open to anyone to post - with the slight requirement to provide a valid email address - if people don't use news gateway ( that can be added to wiki as well ). The information that is posted on mailing lists is archived and available on the web just like wiki. IMO the problem is that wiki is treated in the same way with the CVS or the web site. It should be treated as a mailing list with public archives. I am more concerned with the potential that someone who disagrees with the content of the page would remove it - but again this abuse can be resolved if we require a valid mailing address ( and we can restore the page ) On the other side - I have no problem with having one ( or several ) Wiki per PMC or subproject, and mirroring the postings in the wiki to a mailing list. Costin On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote: > > 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]
