RE: [atlarge-discuss] RE : [atlarge-discuss] Verification Committee....

["Abel Wisman" <abel@able-towers.com>]

Excuse me??

I heard a lot of nonsense but this is close to the top!

There is NO comparison whatsoever between the two.

Please name me instances when paswds go over the maillist or the forum?
Are you telling me that you are sharing passwds ????? That is the WORST
decision ANY sysadmin could allow!

There is NO information that goes on or around in the web-comm that can
not see the light of day, unlike the verification comm which deals with
personal data of real people.

There is no code used in websites that need "protection" or is not easy
to obtain in other ways, at most it is boring to read and I sure as hell
don't believe you will be sending each other code on a maillist.

Please stop this nonsense and open up that forum. If you guys refuse to
comply with this simple request please bare in mind I am very willing to
make this a panel motion.

Abel


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel CHIRITA [mailto:daniel@chirita.org] 
> Sent: 15 July 2003 20:17
> To: 'Atlarge-Discuss@Lists. Fitug. De'
> Subject: [atlarge-discuss] RE : [atlarge-discuss] 
> Verification Committee....
> 
> 
> I dont understand: why VC discussions must be closed to 
> public, and Webteam must be public ??? I know, VC handles 
> personal data, but Webteam handles informations about 
> website, code, passwords, and other informations which must 
> remain private, for security raisons ;) I think both VC and 
> WebTeam should have a public but also a private section.
> 
> Daniel CHIRITA
> 
> >-----Message d'origine-----
> >De : Joanna Lane [mailto:jo-uk@rcn.com]
> >Envoyé : mardi 15 juillet 2003 20:39
> >À : Atlarge-Discuss@Lists. Fitug. De
> >Objet : [atlarge-discuss] Verification Committee....
> >
> >
> >http://www.fitug.de/atlarge-discuss/0307/msg00360.html
> >Ron wrote:
> >The VC should continue to work their own e-mail list. It is
> >private to the committee, it is asymmetric and always 
> >available to everyone, regardless of bandwidth constraints.
> >
> >- I agree, but I fail to see how it can have open discussions
> >on a day to day basis and at the same time comply with it's 
> >obligations not to disclose confidential information provided 
> >to it for verification purposes by individual members. The VC 
> >e-mail list must be a closed list therefore, like a security 
> >committee, but certainly it's decisions can be and ought to be 
> >recorded publicly, with a record of each Resolution and a 
> >report of how each VC member voted, which can be widely published.
> >
> >Joanna
> >
> >
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> >For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
> >
> >
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
> 
> 



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