[PDB Data Ownership-TF] Meeting#7 Follow-up

[Filiz Yilmaz]

Dear all,

We had a very productive meeting today. 

I strongly recommend that you review the highlights below, listen to the recording and start a thread in the mailing list if you have concerns. 


The recoding is being converted as I type this e-mail but soon can be found in the usual place:
https://drive.google.com/drive/u/2/folders/1wz08_g6NtqkiBkOYUhekLwVJYwZkCnBv <https://drive.google.com/drive/u/2/folders/1wz08_g6NtqkiBkOYUhekLwVJYwZkCnBv>


Highlights of the meeting: 

1. Chris’ proposal for conflict management for IXP data received strong support both on the ml and during the meeting. 
It is decided that we will make a Last Call for the pseudo-code he compiled and shared under the Subject “IXP assignment IP address (netixlan) ownership”
Deadline of the Last Call is set 13 Feb. 
Filiz will make a call on the mailing list. 


2. After 13 Feb, we will proceed with working on the Policy Document and the reflection of the pseudo-code on it. 
Agreed plan is as follows: 

- Chris, Filiz and William will update the Policy Document using the following agreed points:
Conflicted data if legacy will not be changed in PeeringDB. 
New (conflicted) data will be only published after the conflict is resolved. 
Admin Com helps resolving the conflict between parties involved. 
We keep to the philosophy that data is user-maintained. 
Users who want to turn ” Allow IXP update” feature on should be aware that they are allowing the IXP to update their records. Usage of this feature is optional. 
Facilities section should note that some of the data in PeeringDB are not owned and we do not expect it to be owned anytime soon.
Resolving conflicts on Facilities is also in Admin Committee’s domain too but this can be limited as Facilities can be orphaned.
Rest of the objects/data in the Policy Document are easier and should note that they are owned by their creators (as in network objects belong to the networks, person object to individuals, etc…). 
[Filiz’ post meeting note: We may want to add in case of staff changes etc Admin Committee can be asked to update objects as necessary provided with sufficient evidence. ]
- Then announce the Policy Document publicly (still hoping for the end of March for this). 

- Get the necessary implementation phase initiated via Product Committee


3. As we are working on the write up of the Policy Document, Chris will get in touch with Matt to see pseudo-code is implementable. FY will also help with keeping Product Committee informed. 


Kind regards
Filiz



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.peeringdb.com/pipermail/dataownership-tf/attachments/20200206/fd1cf3bf/attachment-0001.htm>