[PDB Data Ownership-TF] Scope Wording change

[Chris Caputo]

On Wed, 18 Dec 2019, Arnold Nipper wrote:
> 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.

:-)

On Wed, 18 Dec 2019, Job Snijders wrote:
> We should replace "object" with "data element"

So that gives:

  - “This Policy Document will include a clear description of each data 
    element and the relation between each other, as well as who should be 
    allowed to create, update, and delete them".

Anyone else support this as the change to make to the Scope?  (I do too.)

Chris