[PDB Data Ownership-TF] Scope Wording change

[Arnold Nipper]

On 18.12.2019 16:51, Chris Caputo wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Dec 2019, Arnold Nipper wrote:
>> All
>>
>> On 18.12.2019 16:09, Chris Caputo wrote:
>>> On Wed, 18 Dec 2019, Arnold Nipper wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 18.12.2019 00:54, Filiz Yilmaz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It is mainly changing:
>>>>>
>>>>> “This Policy Document will include a clear description of each object,
>>>>> sub-object, and associated data, respectively, as well as*which type of
>>>>> user (network, IXP, etc.) *should be allowed to create and update them. “
>>>>>
>>>>> To: 
>>>>> “This Policy Document will include a clear description of each object,
>>>>> sub-object, and associated data, respectively, as well as well as *who*
>>>>> should be allowed to create and update them.”
>>>>>
>>>>> If you have any objections to this, you can raise them until 24 Dec on
>>>>> the mailing list. 
>>>>> After that I will get the Scope on the website changed too. 
>>>>>
>>>> for me it's unclear what is meant by "sub-object" and "associated data".
>>>> For me there are only objects (i.e. fac, ix, ixfac, ixlan, ixpfx, net,
>>>> netfac, netixlan and poc. And as-set which imho shouldn't be there) and
>>>> relations between these objects expressed by ids. E.g. in netixlan we
>>>> find net_id and ix_id (and ixlan_id, but this id in turn is pointed to
>>>> by the the very same ix_id).
>>> Arnold, as I understand it, the Scope is meant to be broad and not address 
>>> specific present-day PeeringDB object types.
>>>
>>
>> so what is "each object" then referring to?
> 
> It is referring to PeeringDB objects.  I just meant they aren't addressed 
> specificially in the Scope.
> 
>> I'm not a native speaker, but would rephrase this to
> 
> I think you write English quite well, actually.
> 
>>  “This Policy Document will include a clear description of each object
>>  and the relation between each other, as well as well as the user
>>  permission system to create, update, and delete objects".
> 
> In the most recent conference call we tried to address your comment in the 
> Policy Document:
> 
>   - "which type of user (network, IXP, etc.)"
>   - There is no distinction between users regarding their network, IXP etc
> 
> by getting away from "user" with a change to "who" since we are talking 
> about the type of user (ie., their perspective on a given object), not the 
> PeeringDB "user" object specifically.  Thus if "user permission system" is 
> replaced with "who should be allowed" in your verbage, ala:
> 
>   “This Policy Document will include a clear description of each object
>   and the relation between each other, as well as well as who should be 
>   allowed to create, update, and delete objects".
> 
> Would you be comfortable with that?
> 

Fine by me. Now you only have to deal with Job's suggestion which imho
is a fine one as well.


Cheers
Arnold
-- 
Arnold Nipper
email: arnold at peeringdb.com
mobile: +49 172 2650958

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 261 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.peeringdb.com/pipermail/dataownership-tf/attachments/20191218/38c57af1/attachment-0001.sig>