On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 12:30:02AM +0100, Carsten Hey wrote:
> In a non-public mail, Rhonda explained an argument against publishing
> such automatically generated lists. A short summary is:
<snip>
> An other argument against publishing the list is that this information
> used to be non-public. Publishing information that used to be
> non-public without noticing people priorly to give them the chance to
> remove the part they do not want to be published is not that nice. The
> canonical way to reach all DDs is to send a mail to debian-devel-announce.
> I think if we decide to publish a list of all .debian.net domains, such
> a mail should be sent.
Agreed. For the two reasons above, we should not have someone just
automatically publish the result of an LDAP query they can run a DDs. It
should be done properly, after we've decided the existence of debian.net
should be published, and giving a reasonable grace period in the
(hopefully unlikely) case someone want to back off.
Now, is anyone against publishing the list of debian.net entries and the
entry <-> registrant association (provided the above conditions are
met)?
> A related problem is that there is no general way to find out how to
> reach someone being responsible for a specific .debian.net service.
> The DD that originally registered the domain is not necessarily still
> involved in providing the service and possibly might registered the
> domain on behalf of someone who is not yet a DD. A way to solve the
> first is to update the account linked to the domain if the original
> registrant is not involved anymore; the second could be solved by
> requiring the DD that registered it to act as proxy to the responsible
> person (mentioning the real contact address on the services web site
> would avoid the need to act as proxy in most cases).
To me, the most reasonable solution seems to consider that the
registrant is the responsible contact point for the service. Publishing
the entry <-> registrant association we will de facto document who to
contact. I agree with you that publishing the real contact address on
the service web site would make the problem moot. So, proxies who do not
want to be bothered as contact points should simply encourage the
actual services admins to document the 'real' contact point. (This
leaves out the case of debian.net services that are not 'web' services,
but they should be documented anyhow, so...)
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o .
Maître de conférences ...... http://upsilon.cc/zack ...... . . o
Debian Project Leader ....... @zack on identi.ca ....... o o o
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature