[PDB Data Ownership-TF] Scope Wording change

[William Marantz]

I support.

On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 11:51 AM Darrell Budic <darrell at unitedix.net> wrote:

> Works for me, I support.
>
>   -Darrell
>
> On Dec 18, 2019, at 10:45 AM, Chris Caputo <ccaputo at alt.net> wrote:
>
> 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--
> DataOwnership-TF mailing list
> DataOwnership-TF at lists.peeringdb.com
> https://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dataownership-tf
>
>
> --
> DataOwnership-TF mailing list
> DataOwnership-TF at lists.peeringdb.com
> https://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dataownership-tf
>


-- 
*Bill Marantz*
Principal Network Engineer
Backbone Engineering
Mobile: 848-404-4613
email: wmarantz at salesforce.com <ihamilton at salesforce.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.peeringdb.com/pipermail/dataownership-tf/attachments/20191218/208f5373/attachment.html>