(No Subject)

with) /etc/passwd (ie namedb entry == user account), and the IPDB flows down
to (and has correspondence with) /etc/group (ie IPDB entry defines groups of
user accounts for permission reasons); and in addition the IPDB has fields
that assist in catagorizing the web site attached to that IP inside of the
ChebHoo directory.

next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects


This clearly leads to some flawd assumptions:

1) 	a. websites editing is done by groups
	b. it is desirable for CCN (or any webhost) to handle file permissions
	c. and revision control
2)	only group websites hosted on CCN are worthy of being in the ChebHoo
directory.

Currently, as it stands, the distinction between accounts that go into
NAMEDB, and those which go into IPDB, to me, is unclear, and random at best.

So, if you really want useful feedback in what's possible, and to generate
interest in getting people implementing the required features then what you
should do first is create a list of features you want/need, why you
want/need them, and (if) where they currently exist, and steps for
implementing these.

Personally what I think should exist are:

1) user accounts, with quotas, expiry dates, etc (ie namedb style
accounts/processing, as is)

2) a tool for generating/maintaining (on the fly?) the ChebHoo directory,
with sites in the ChebHoo directory hosted by us, not by us, privately,
wherever. 'Generation' meaning that the tool handles layout (templatized),
and maintenance being adding, deleting, updating entries, keeping track of
who entered it in the directory, when it was last noted as being alive (and
who noted it), hidden from public view comments, public comments,
ccn/local/friends/new/cool flags used to determine placement.

And the steps for implementing this would be to:

administratively:
continue (revert to) creating group accounts as 'normal' accounts
contact the IPs, establish their status, and get them 'normal' accounts

editorially:
populate the new automated ChebHoo directory

technically:
develop the (set of) tool(s) described above
assist in its population
lock up the IPDB (and tools) when existing IPs have moved to user accounts

Note that I have started preliminary work on the automated directory
(http://phoenix.chebucto.ns.ca/index.php3), but it currently is sparsely
populated, has no editing/maintenance abilities - ie it only spits out data,
and I haven't done the recursive function to do the 'pwd' subheading.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ccn-tech-owner@chebucto.ns.ca
> [mailto:ccn-tech-owner@chebucto.ns.ca]On Behalf Of Mark Rushton
> Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2000 10:28 PM
> To: ccn-ip@chebucto.ns.ca
> Cc: ccn-editors@chebucto.ns.ca; ccn-tech@chebucto.ns.ca
> Subject: Interim IP registration proposal
>
>
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> The Board directed at Tuesday evening's meeting that the office
> revert to registering new organizational websites using the "old"
> IPDB.
>
> I was involved in a discussion this evening to look at the logistics
> of doing so, in such a way as not to have a huge impact on the
> expectations of those who have heard of the "new" method that's been
> in place for the past couple of months.
>
> Specifically, we wanted to (a) keep the IPDB involved, while (b)
> providing the ease-of-FTP functionality that the "new" system
> provided.
>
> We also wanted to do this in a way that will not adversely affect the
> revisions being made to IPDB.
>
> This is the process we have determined.  Tech-types in particular
> please read through this and answer the questions posed so we can
> move quickly to adopting this interim process.
>
> Essentially, we are creating records in both the IPDB and NAMEDB for
> each organization.  This fulfils the old IPDB requirement that a CCN-
> user be the website editor.
>
> We have two options:  Create identically-named entries in both
> databases (i.e. "NSCUBA" in IPDB and "NSCUBA" in NameDB) which  would
> (??) make the eventual reunion of the NameDB and revised IPDB easier
> (?), or the NameDB entry could be  "NSCUBA-webmaster" to
> differentiate but still create a relationship that is obvious.
>
> TECH: WHICH OF THESE TWO OPTIONS IS PREFERRED, AND IS THERE ANY
> CRITICAL PROBLEM TO PREVENT THIS METHOD?
>
> This also reinstates the location of the new organization within the
> information tree structure (i.e., under "Community Support" or
> "Environment", etc.
>
> The process:
>
> 1. An organization wishes to host their website on CCN.  They contact
> the office and submit the *new* (board-approved) "neighbourhood
> account" agreement, which is the only one in force.
>
> 2. The office undertakes the steps that IPs in the past had to
> perform, namely:
> 	- enters the information in the online IP registration form
>   	- creates a new user via the online registration form, using
> 	  the same name as the IP.  (i.e., if  NSCUBA is the new IP coming
>    	  aboard, then NSCUBA is entered as a new user also)
>
> 3. The IPDB will notify the EIC that a new record has been added.
> 	(CORRECT? IS THIS AUTOMATED?)
>
> 4.  The IPDB record is updated to reflect TRAINED, even though we do not
>       require this for the new organizational websites.
>                (IS THIS NECESSARY TO CONTINUE?  CAN OFFICE DO IT?  OR
> ONLY BOB ADAMS?)
>
> 5.  The Office deletes the  PUBLIC_HTML  directory from the "user"
> account associated with the IPDB account (to clarify the FTP
> destination directory, which is accessible via the "00ip" directory
> in the NameDB user directory)
>
> 6.  The Office notifies the organization and its selected webmaster
> that the account is active and ready for files to be FTP'd.  The
> Office notifies the org. and webmaster of the FTP path to be used, to
> avoid confusion.
>
> NOTE that this provides for the organization to have a WebMail
> account, accessible via CCN's homepage, which was not a feature of
> the "new" process.
>
> NOTE that this is only intended as an INTERIM solution until the IPDB
> is revised, and we have a clearer, better-functioning process.
>
> Unless there are CRITICAL reasons for not going ahead with this, we
> would appreciate only constructive criticism  ;-)
>
> I have made every effort to make this summary accurate; there may be
> mistakes, and as they are revealed to me I will send them on. NOTE
> that we are on a TIGHT timeline to get this going, and continue the
> process of rebuilding our online content.
>
> Thank-you, and goodnight.
>
> Mark.
> --
> ----------------------------------------
> Mark Rushton, Editor
> Community Support & Development
> Chebucto Community Network (CCN)
> <Mark@chebucto.ns.ca>
> <http://www.chebucto.ns.ca>
> ----------------------------------------
>

next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects