On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 02:32:53PM -0500, zachary rosen wrote:
> > On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, zachary rosen wrote:
> > > The only real
> > > difference between centralized and decentralized in terms of admin work
> > > required then becomes the mundane maintenance tasks: pruning and
> > > organization.  If the nodes are empowered to maintain their own local
> > > repository then doing this work is offloaded from the potentially very
> > > large bottlneck of having it all maintained / pruned in a central site by
> > > one set of admins (DMT) to the many capable node admins.  Am I missing
> > > something?
> >
> > Yeah.  Anybody can prune the database.  For maintenance operations that
> > might be a little dangerous, like vetoing media, we can hand out moderator
> > accounts on the central site to volunteers we trust.  In fact, it would
> > be easier to find volunteers to just moderate than volunteers to run
> > an entire DeanSpace site.
> This is exactly the reason I am so opposed to this solution.  It is a
> basic question: who do you trust more to vett / prune media on the system
> that comes from nodes? DMT - or the nodes themselves?

It might be productive, at that juncture, to make explicit the assumptions
you're carrying about what *sort* of vetting might be being done, by whom,
and for what reasons.

I suspect we have almost a *classic* case of the centralized/decentralized
debate going here, and the two sides of this one aren't ever *going* to agree
in my experience, so let's just yell "Hitler!" and "Godwin!", and define our
assumptions.  :-)

-- jra
Jay R. Ashworth                                                [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member of the Technical Staff     Baylink                             RFC 2100
The Suncoast Freenet         The Things I Think
Tampa Bay, Florida        http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274

   OS X: Because making Unix user-friendly was easier than debugging Windows
        -- Simon Slavin, on a.f.c

Reply via email to