On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Ka-Ping Yee wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, zachary rosen wrote:
> > 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?
>
> We are all on the same team, Zack. Site admins can volunteer to be
> moderators if they want; DMT people can volunteer to be moderators
> if they want; my Mom could volunteer to be a moderator, except that
> she has no idea what this is about ("Oh, Howard who? That's nice.").
> It doesn't matter whether submission is central or distributed.
>
> But a separate issue: it sounds as though now you're suggesting that
> the media items sit on the nodes waiting for approval before they're
> forwarded up to the search database. Yet the earlier response to
> questions about update consistency was that things would travel
> automatically, two hops up. So which is it: friction or no friction?
>
> What bothers me about trying to discuss the distributed submission
> design is that we don't *have* a distributed submission design yet.
> If the hypothetical design keeps morphing each time there's a new
> question, that makes it difficult to talk about.
>
>
> -- ?!ng
>
At the very least the system we come up with should support the following
vetting functionality (in my opinion).
1] Nodes should be able to vett the media in their repositories
2] The central aggregator should be able to vett the media accessible in
the central repository.
With the central solution [1] becomes hard if not impossible to
accomplish. Either a) every node is responsible for sending an admin to sign up and
be given permission by the DMT to vet media for their node on the central site. or
b) we build in functionality that allows nodes to veto media in their
local repository that is culled from the central DB... which only solves
half the problem: they still have no way to counter veto a vett from the
DMT. Either solution will take many man hours of time to accomplish, and
this would not even be an issue to consider with the decentralized
solution (both the aggregators and the nodes automatically can vet to their hearts
content).
Whether it is frictionless or there is friction does not effect the
engineering effort required to create this system if it is decentralized.
If it is centralized then this DOES become a problem - because
ultimately we would want to give the nodes the power to choose (frictionless or
friction) and this would become extremely tricky if not impossible if we
did make it centralized.
-Zack
