[PDB Data Ownership-TF] draft "Data Ownership Policy Document"
ccaputo at alt.net
Sat Mar 21 13:22:59 PDT 2020
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020, Arnold Nipper wrote:
> On 21.03.2020 20:22, Job Snijders wrote:
> > Dear group,
> > On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 06:35:32PM +0000, Chris Caputo wrote:
> >> https://www.caputo.com/dotf/0.20200320.2-CC-AN-WM-DB.txt
> > I've just now read the whole document and I am very impressed with how
> > this is shaping up. I recognise a lot of what was discussed in our calls
> > and believe this draft would be an excellent output of this effort.
> > My only suggestion is that perhaps it should be documented that should
> > dispute arise as a result of the Admin Committee's resolution process,
> > the issue is brought to PeeringDB's Board of Directors for mediation.
> How dispute which arises within AC is handled should imho be in the
> Charter of the AC and not in this document. Hence augmenting the Charter
> if necessary and then poiting to the Charter would be more
> straightforward imho.
Arnold brings up a good point. This task force can't really amend the
Admin Committee charter which was already approved by the Board:
So instead of adding this to section 3.3 Admin Committee:
- Decisions of the Admin Committee may be appealed to the PeeringDB
Board of Directors.
it may be much better to add: (diff below)
- This Task Force recommends that the Admin Committee charter be amended
to specify that decisions of the Admin Committee may be appealed to
the PeeringDB Board of Directors.
Arnold & Job, does that work for you?
@@ -78,6 +78,10 @@
deal with user data. The Task Force recommends this practice continue as
having audit trails of all data is good practice.
+This Task Force recommends that the Admin Committee charter be amended to
+specify that decisions of the Admin Committee may be appealed to the
+PeeringDB Board of Directors.
3.4) Conflicted Data
In some cases ownership of data elements may not be either/or, but rather
More information about the DataOwnership-TF