next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
Index of Subjects Hi Ed et. al! On Mon, 9 Aug 1999, Edward Dyer wrote: > In my role as liaison between the IP and Tech committees, I want to > bring this issue to your attention. Due to change of editors and/or > editor's accounts, some IP mailing lists appear to be abandoned by > their "listowners". As this can happen for various reasons, I'm > looking for input as to what policy we should establish for dealing > with these cases. David Potter & I have done at least a couple of swaths through the lists in the past year or two and eliminated a lot of deadwood. Whenever I am aware of an IP which has folded or moved I (or the appropriate CCN Editor) take a series of steps, the procedure of which summarized at: http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/Policy/IP/Editors/editorial_process.html#closing which include closing down ml-priv lists checking the status of ml-pub lists. Its certainly possible that a website of an IP could close on the CCN and they would wish to continue to operate an ml-pub lists here, and I see no objection to doing so (although I would obviously urge them strongly to keep the website here ;->), however, I cannot recall an instance of this happening. In any event this should certainly be permitted since we do allow CCN IPs whose sole activity (here) is running a list. > <snip context from original message on ccn-tech> > > I see from the list that you have a probable resolution for this > particular user and his lists, but your question remains, what > should we do in general when a list owner's account is > changed/terminated. > > For an IP related list (the majority) the first place to look is the > group list for the IP, to see who the new IPE1 is. > > - If the IP has also disappeared, then presumably the list should > also be nuked. But we have at least one case that comes to > mind where an IP site has moved to another host, but the mailing > list is still active, so this is not a clear cut and dry. I don't > know the "status" of that IP organization with us.. See above. I don't know of such an instance but it could certainly come to pass. In my interpretation they are still a valid IP if they wish to operate a public list through us. > - It becomes a policy issue whether we even consider allowing this > situation to happen in the future. How we even know about this is > unclear, since we don't have a formal process for "expiry" of IP > agreements. True enough, however, in the absence of an 'expiry policy' they should (if they so desire) be allowed to continue. > - If the IP is active, but has a new editor(s) who are valid users, > they should be approached to learn about list ownership and then > take it on. But while we don't want a totally unprepared list-owner > faced with a misbehaving list, (fortunately this is rare) we don't > have any formal training (just the list-owners pages off goip) All of the above is true. What we need (as I've suggested a few times in the past) are some simple scripts which periodically (CRON every 3 months, say) check the IPDB for IPs for whom there is no longer a person with a valid CCN login in the edit group; and do a similar thing in relation to lists and listowners. The first script reports the results to ccn-ip; the second would report to ml-admin. Without some scripted checking mechanism well always have these problems developing and there is no way to find these rudderless ships without checking the whole base of information. > For non-ip lists, these should almost all be administrative lists, > so the committee that is responsible should be asked to pick up the > ball and appoint a list-owner, usually the committee chair. In terms of CCN administrative lists we should evaluate them on a (say) yearly basis. If they are continuing to function (and have no listowner) we should find a new one. If they have ceased to operate we should close them down. > If we have non-administrative, non IP lists, then we should evaluate > whether they ought to be brought under the IP infrastructure, in order > to establish legal and economic accountability for the use of the > resource. In fact, far back in CCN history, lists were created for groups without running them through the IP process. It was subsequently thought that all outside organizations conducting some sort of activity on the CCN should be considered IPs (and sign an IP Agreement) so that there was a legal, contractual basis for their operation. Thus if there are such lists still in existence, they should be brought under the IP rubric. This is the same as what we did with our former so-called 'static IPs' which were all either closed or turned into regular IPs. > I will send a copy of this to the IP committee to see if they have > any feedback. Feedback. ;-> Cheers! Chris _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._. Christopher Majka <aa051@chebucto.ns.ca> Editor-in-Chief: Chebucto Community Net - Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada URL = http://www..chebucto.ns.ca/Home.html "Often his editorial policy was a nice compromise between blackmail and begging" - William Allen White, The Nation, Jun 18, 1938 _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._.
next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects