[AktiviX-discuss] proposals

[Charlie Harvey]

Picture the scene, it's 1:22 on 22 Jan 2005, and mp says:

| hi,
| 
| due to the evolution of the web, the increased sophistication of
| google's search algorithms and so on it is herewith proposed to
| radically reconfigure the procedures of requests and processes of
| dealing with requests for aktivix services.
| 
| The proposal has three points:
| 
| 1# archive entries concerning email or list requests to be removed for
| their obvious contribution to anyone who may wish to map out activist
| network (including this mail!)

If it's google that is the concern, the other possibility is to 
add a rule to robots.txt and have it ignore anything in the 
archives. This would mean you could still get to  the archives 
if you knew where they were, but they wouldn't come up in 
google/altavista/etc. 

http://www.kuznetsov.uklinux.net/robots-tutorial.php

Or you could require that people be authorized to view the 
archives, just set up apache to use BasicAuthentication and 
you've got 'good enough' security (tm)

http://httpd.apache.org/docs/howto/auth.html#basic

I don't actually have a particular preference here - I haven't 
personally used the archives, yet - but I wanted to bring up 
the other options for discussion. 
 
| 2# a simple HTML form, to be placed on main page or prominently linked
| to from here, in which to make a request be substituted for current
| procedures.

Definitely agree that would be better :-)
 
| 3# the list-owner group should receive the requests (the form) and make
| the decision according to their knowledge of those who request, and of
| course ask for seconding etc. as necessary. there may be issues about
| accountability etc. in this context, but they are, imho, secondary and
| can easily be dealt with. if list owner group is as a minimum 5 (as
| currently) it should possible to have this level of responsibility
| delegated - taken into consideration that gains in privacy.
| 
| What do people think?

Seems sensible ...

Cheers,
Charlie