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

[Arnold Nipper]

Chris

On 17.02.2020 05:23, Christopher Malayter wrote:

> Arnold doesn’t want to resolve the facility admin issue in the data
> ownership Taskforce, which is silly IMHO.
> 
> He wants someone to submit a feature request for data ownership.  I
> believe we should resolve that here.
> 

there is nothing to resolve. All records (fac, ix, net) are owned. I.e.
there is an organisation (org) owning. However it is not task of the TF
to command that each org has to have an admin. There are still some
leftovers from migration to PDB2.0 as well as new ones from suggested
facilities.

Actually I also do not see any reason to enforce this. If someone claims
ownership it is granted after due diligence. So what due you want to fix?


Arnold

> -Chris
> 
> 
>> On Feb 16, 2020, at 10:41 PM, Chris Caputo <ccaputo at alt.net
>> <mailto:ccaputo at alt.net>> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 11 Feb 2020, Arnold Nipper wrote:
>>> Chris
>>>
>>> On 08.02.2020 05:02, Christopher Malayter wrote:
>>>> I’m suggesting we allow facility admins.
>>>
>>> We *allow* admins of organisations owning facilities. However, we do not
>>> enforce them. For Post PDB2.0 organisations owning a net/ix there must
>>> be an admin. This was also true for fac until we introduced the "Suggest
>>> Facility" [0].
>>>
>>> I hope that clarifies.
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Arnold
>>>
>>>
>>> [0] https://peeringdb.com/suggest/fac
>>
>> Chris M., are you okay with what Arnold wrote or is there something to be 
>> resolved here?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Chris
> 
> 


-- 
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/20200217/2efb0157/attachment.sig>