| 1 |
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 12:48 PM, Daniel Robbins <drobbins@××××××.org> |
| 2 |
wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 10:43 AM, Alec Warner <antarus@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> Specifically regarding your proposal, I'm not sure what outcome you are |
| 8 |
>> actually expecting. Explicitly stating that the Foundation owns and |
| 9 |
>> controls assets that it literally owns and controls seems a bit |
| 10 |
>> tautological (and thus of little value.) It might be useful to state that |
| 11 |
>> in that event of a 'hostile takeover' type situation the board will pursue |
| 12 |
>> all legal remedies; but this too seems somewhat tautological (but I'm open |
| 13 |
>> to more leeway here.) |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Yes, it is unclear as to how specifically this is protected against, and |
| 17 |
> if it is the case that sufficient safeguards are in place, and that |
| 18 |
> everyone involved in -infra is aware that the |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
Foundation essentially is ultimately 'in charge' of the servers, then this |
| 21 |
> issues, as far as I can tell, is resolved. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
I think for now its the general culture from the current infrastructure |
| 25 |
lead (robbat2) and the draft policy that tries to clearly describe the |
| 26 |
situation. At least the current infra team is aware of a number of past |
| 27 |
incidents (one being the one you mentioned, but there are others) and IMHO |
| 28 |
avoiding impropriety (and avoiding even the appearance of impropriety) is |
| 29 |
pretty high upon our list. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
I'll try to aim for the policy to be out by the next meeting; but the infra |
| 32 |
lead is pretty busy with work so it might not be finalized. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-A |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> -Daniel |
| 39 |
> |
Archives