[db-wg] Deprecation of whitepages

Hi Ed

Well maybe we should start by discussing this exclusion list. It's the
first I have heard of it.

If such a list exists (as it does) then the reasons for exclusion
should be defined. Maybe exclusion is also the wrong term, protected
is perhaps more appropriate. Who decides if an object should be
protected should also be defined and there should be some transparent
indication in the database that an object is protected.

The whitepages mechanism was difficult to manage and relied on
community moderators to decide if someone should be included. So maybe
we should follow the NWI process and define the problem statement,
being the reasons why some objects need protecting. Then we can decide
how best to manage this.

cheers
denis
co-chair DB-WG

On Thu, 28 Jan 2021 at 21:04, Edward Shryane <eshryane at ripe.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Will, Denis,
>
> > On 28 Jan 2021, at 20:30, Will Scott <willscott at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Can I request that EON11-RIPE be added to the same list?
> >
>
> I have added EON11-RIPE to the exclude list for the cleanup unreferenced object job.
>
> > That satisfies my immediate goal as much as the white page,
> > and the visibility of this mailing list thread should be
> > equivalent to that of the previous one in helping the next
> > person who comes along and runs into the edge case of
> > wanting to protect an unreferenced atlas role.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > --Will
> >
>
> Denis, given there is still a need to be excluded from the cleanup, should this be done by the whitepages mechanism and/or the (RIPE NCC managed) exclude list?
>
> Regards
> Ed
>
>