[governance] IGF MAG 2018: NO NEWS
Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch
apisan at unam.mx
Wed Jan 3 23:47:14 EST 2018
the decisions on keeping the archives open or not should give great weight to the people who were involved at the time. The fact that many will not be easy to contact strengthens the point.
It is flabbergasting too how disparate this loss is with the elaborate structures and superstructures, processes, superprocesses and subprocesses given to elections; thousands of emails in that respect will be found when the archives are reconstituted, and none about operational responsibilities other than a few by people like Bill Drake who actually took care. Responsibilities of officials should be better spelled out for the future starting really soon.
Starting with closed archives as default will make it more feasible for Tapani to perform the heroic task he has volunteered for; that decision can be reversed later, which does not hold for the opposite direction. The task is herculean; it would be unfriendly to have it bogged in an internal policy discussion in which the most affected parties are not guaranteed to be able to participate.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
Facultad de Química UNAM
Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
+52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
+525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475
Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Desde: governance-request at lists.riseup.net [governance-request at lists.riseup.net] en nombre de Renata Aquino Ribeiro [raquino at gmail.com]
Enviado el: miércoles, 03 de enero de 2018 17:47
Hasta: Tapani Tarvainen; governance at lists.riseup.net
Asunto: Re: [governance] IGF MAG 2018: NO NEWS
I do not oppose keeping the past archives open.
I'd also think the steps outlined seem quite reasonable.
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 6:52 AM, Tapani Tarvainen
<tapani.tarvainen at effi.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 02:59:10AM +0100, Chris Prince Udochukwu Njoku (udochukwu.njoku at unn.edu.ng) wrote:
>> So, let's approve the reconstruction proposal, so that Tapani et al. can
>> get to work. The sooner the better.
> If I get all messages in, eh, "raw" format, it won't take long to rebuild
> the archive (I'd just create a temporary mailing list on my own machine
> and use Mailman command-line tools, easy enough). If some of the messages
> are in less convenient format it may be harder and/or result may not be
> perfect (threading in particular is likely to be lost).
> My own archive reaches to July 2005, and Jeanette has them from
> December 2003, which must be pretty close to the very beginning.
> But, what should we do with the archive once reconstructed?
> In principle it might be possible to merge it with this (current) list
> archive, but in practice probably not (I'm not familiar with the list
> software Riseup uses, but messing with the archive probably requires
> server privileges normal list admins don't have). If someone knows
> Riseup better and can tell if there'd be an easy way to move the old
> (reconstructed) archive there, do tell.
> Otherwise it'd need another place. I could put it on my own server for
> now, or I could probably have it hosted by Effi (there it'd survive
> even if I'm run over by a bus) at no cost (resource requirements are
> trivial). Other suggestions would be welcome as well.
> If hosting it on my or Effi's server I'd want to get a new domain
> for it, too, just to keep it distinct and easily movable. That
> would cost something but little enough not to worry me. We'd have
> to agree on the domain name though.
> There's also an ethical question: should the archive be then made
> world-readable? The original one was not, it was restricted to
> subscribers only (which is of course why we need to reconstruct
> it now from sundry sources rather than just archive.org).
> Technically it would be possible to set it up so that it'd still be
> readable by subscribers only, but managing the subscriber list would
> be cumbersome (linking it to the new list would probably be impossible,
> it'd have to be maintained separately), so I'd rather avoid that.
> Given the nature of the list I don't think there's anything that's in
> any way sensitive at this point of time (even if some may have been at
> the time), but I would like to see something of a consensus on this
> point before proceeding.
> The new list archive seems to be public, btw, even if its location
> isn't entirely obvious (https://lists.riseup.net/www/arc/governance)
> and the spammer protection mechanism there probably prevents it from
> being archived by archive.org.
> Tapani Tarvainen
> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
More information about the Governance