On 04/30/2011 03:41 PM, Thomas Lord wrote: > Admins don't exactly have extra "privilege" in name > allocation. Successful admins have widely well regarded > cryptographic signatures, is all. > > The system is also decentralized in that no user is > "captive" to any one admin. Users can always change > admins, sign up with multiple admins, invest time and > effort to be their own admin, etc.
I think framing it with the (already well-known terms) "Users" and
"Admins" puts people in the mind of the traditional (often antagonistic)
relationship between these groups, as well as all the associated
privileged/unprivileged historical conflict.
I haven't thought through the proposal enough to say i agree or disagree
with it, but i think it would be better served with a term other than
"Admin" for the role with extra public-facing responsibility.
IIUC, the point is that one group takes on an additional responsibility
-- interacting with other members of the group, committing to publish
allocated names in a timely fashion, being responsive to the members of
the other group, etc.
I'm curious about what happens to an "admin" who fails to keep up with
their additional responsibilities -- is there a way that other admins
can censure or reject them? can their dependent users tell that the
admin has been censured or rejected?
--dkg
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Freedombox-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-discuss
