Re: Bricolage: Impressive

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Josh Berkus [mailto:josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com]
> Sent: 19 January 2004 20:02
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: PostgreSQL Web Development Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] Bricolage: Impressive
>
> Dave,
>
> > I realise the PostgreSQL project is not the same as Vale
> Housing, but
> > still, the same considerations must be made to some extent.
>
> Not really. It's easy enough for us to add a legal
> disclaimer to the Wiki template. Beyond that, we're an
> unincorporated OSS association.

Yes, and as such the entity that takes the hit of any legal action is
not going to be the board of any company, but probably whoever is
legally in charge of the servers - in this case, Marc.

> Sure. What I'm pointing out is that the defacements are not
> at a level which hampers the use of Wikis.

<grin> Neither are defacements of IIS servers as a level which generally
hampers the use of them - but I bet you wouldn't install one...

> But it's not on Bricolage: registration of a new author needs
> to be done
> manually by an adiministrator. The workflow and permissions
> are too complex
> otherwise.

Ahh, now that I don't know. Can it be streamlined with some custom code?
I assume it all basically comes down to adding the appropriate rows to
the relevant tables, so if we know all the basic settings to give to a
Joe Public editor then we can bypass the normal user management code...

> I don't think we can enforce T&C, since there is no entity to
> enforce them.

There must be some legal entity in control for the servers to even exist
(probably Marc/hub.org in this instance). If something defamatory about
Microsoft remained posted for some length of time because none of us
were around to remove it quickly, I'm sure there crack legal team would
figure out who to sue pretty darn quickly.

Besides, the idea is not to necessarily enforce the T&Cs by sueing
anyone who breaks them (though we can remove their account), but to show
that we have made best effort to ensure all users follow the rules.

> We can compromise, here, though, you realize.

Absolutely, and I will go with the majority decision in the end, however
I must put my thoughts forward so that all considerations may be, well,
considered!

> What if we got Bric up and
> running, and then let the admins of the Bric site decide,
> after some use, whether a Wiki was called for? At that time,
> it would be more concrete and less speculative.

Well I think we should do that anyway, but having a streamlined editor
registration system on Bric vs. a Wiki is a matter of policy in some
ways as well as a technical issue.

Regards, Dave.