RE: [atlarge-discuss] ...Some thoughts...

["Hugh Blair" <hblair@hotfootmail.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joop Teernstra
> 
> I agree with everything you say, except for that  last point.
> 
> I think we have to avoid the "one point for all information" 
> like the plague. We need redundancy and backup if we want to
> survive.
> 
> You know how the IDNO was shut down.  You were part of that.
> Control of the domain and the mailing list server was all 
> that was needed.
> 
> Don't you see merit in having  at least 5 icannatlarge 
> presences, same graphics, mostly mirrors of each other, all
> working together and all allowing for differences, but each
> geared to accommodate different political tastes?
> 
> That is one of the few ways I see natural "internet 
> democracy" as possible.

Joop, I completely understand why you feel this way. What 
happened to the IDNO was because only one person 'held the
keys' to the server. I think the atlarge can eliminate
that problem with a committee of at least three members
that all have the same access and information about the
server space.

Dual (or triple +) sites trying to all be the same thing
just fractures the process. There's already been too many
bytes flying around just over the member list and the 
nominating/voting process. I think this would be moot if
there was only one point of presence.

But there sure is the opportunity for any person to 
build their own complimentary site that supports or pans
the atlarge efforts. As long as those sites don't put
themselves up as being an 'official' part of the atlarge,
there wouldn't be any issue. Anyone can scrape the
official site and store it locally if they feel it might
disappear. But with a committee of at least 3 members
in charge, I think this won't be an issue.

-- 
Hugh


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de