next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
Index of Subjects Jeff, Thanks for your input! The process may indeed seem a bit backward, but given our timeline, the board directive, and the need to resolve this issue, it can't be helped. From my reading of your comments, I think they would be very helpful in the discussion within CCN-Tech regarding the eventual design and implementation of the modified IPDB. This particular thread is only intended to identify whether there are serious technical impediments to going ahead with an _interim_ solution to our IP registration problem, until the modified IPDB is ready to go. In fact, as I am moving through this, I see a number of points in the discussions with Ed, Chris and Andrew that would seem to be worth considering in the new IPDB concept. Also, you wrote: >However, this discussion has been centered around keeping or getting rid of >the IPDB. And this is neither the question we should be asking, nor the >paths we should be taking. We are not asking this question. The IPDB stays - that's a decision made by the Board. The Tech team is now tasked with working out a suitable modification + interface that jointly accesses both NameDB and IPDB to provide the functionality that has been identified months ago. >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. NameDB accounts are individual user accounts. the IPDB is being modified to make use of some of the NameDB functionality, including expiry, quota tracking, money, etc. Thus, the IPDB will be "calling" a related record in the NameDB. Records are now going to be created in both databases to serve each organization. It's actually a great workaround to the alternative - re-designing and creating a new database file from scratch. >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. This, I believe, was done months ago (at least the first part). The steps needed for implementation have been left in the tech cttee's hands, as it should be. I haven't been at the tech cttee meetings, so I can't comment on what's happening there. The bulk of your comments, as I said, would seem to me to apply more to the tech cttee's discussion of the overall IPDB design - and as I understood only about 1/2 of it, I'll leave it for that forum. All of that said, unless there are solid / critical / technical reasons for not moving forward, we have a need to implement this interim IP registration process ASAP. Thanks for your feedback! Mark. -- ---------------------------------------- Mark Rushton, Editor Community Support & Development Chebucto Community Network (CCN) <Mark@chebucto.ns.ca> <http://www.chebucto.ns.ca> ----------------------------------------
next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects