Maintainer's responsibility (was Re: [dp-tf] Quadlogy of person proposals)
Janos Zsako zsako at 3c-hungary.hu
Fri Jun 15 14:30:22 CEST 2007
Dear Elmar, >>2. Maintainer created by LIR - bound by LIR contract. > > > Not agreed. A lot of maintainers are pretty old, the link to the LIR > (who may as well have gone out of business years ago) is not necessarily > existent anymore. Moreover, a lot of maintainers have been created in > order to relieve the LIR of the maintainance of customer objects (for > customers who want to do that themselves). And, on another leg entirely, > there isn't necessarily a special contract between LIR and customer > that covers RIPE DB updates / maintainer issues. I don't see how the > maintainer's owner would be bound by RIPE-LIR contracts. You are right. I was thinking here mainly of the future (i.e. not about the already existing objects). A way to solve the problem of old objects is to keep track of maintainers we know are bound by a contract and those that are not. Eventually, we may have to treat in some special way those personal objects that are not maintained by maintainers bound by a contract. For example we may have to hide them, delete them, etc. Probably hiding the data is better, as we can re-publish it if we can get the contract with the maintainer. > You will not be able to reach all (or even a majority) of maintainers in > your lifetime. This is a hopeless case, I'm afraid. I fully agree with you. This is somewhat similar to signing the new service contract with all members. In last phase we still had 2-3% of the existing members who did not give any sign of life and we had to cancel the contract with them. I think we can have a similar approach here, we will eventually have to delete "doubtful" data, i.e. data we are not sure we arte allowed to keep in the database. > If you are happy with like 50%, then it's doable. I am afraid we have no other choice. Best regards, Janos
[ dp-tf Archives ]