On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 02:32:53PM -0500, zachary rosen wrote: > > On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, zachary rosen wrote: > > > The only real > > > difference between centralized and decentralized in terms of admin work > > > required then becomes the mundane maintenance tasks: pruning and > > > organization. If the nodes are empowered to maintain their own local > > > repository then doing this work is offloaded from the potentially very > > > large bottlneck of having it all maintained / pruned in a central site by > > > one set of admins (DMT) to the many capable node admins. Am I missing > > > something? > > > > Yeah. Anybody can prune the database. For maintenance operations that > > might be a little dangerous, like vetoing media, we can hand out moderator > > accounts on the central site to volunteers we trust. In fact, it would > > be easier to find volunteers to just moderate than volunteers to run > > an entire DeanSpace site. > > This is exactly the reason I am so opposed to this solution. It is a > basic question: who do you trust more to vett / prune media on the system > that comes from nodes? DMT - or the nodes themselves?
It might be productive, at that juncture, to make explicit the assumptions you're carrying about what *sort* of vetting might be being done, by whom, and for what reasons. I suspect we have almost a *classic* case of the centralized/decentralized debate going here, and the two sides of this one aren't ever *going* to agree in my experience, so let's just yell "Hitler!" and "Godwin!", and define our assumptions. :-) Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] Member of the Technical Staff Baylink RFC 2100 The Suncoast Freenet The Things I Think Tampa Bay, Florida http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274 OS X: Because making Unix user-friendly was easier than debugging Windows -- Simon Slavin, on a.f.c
