Hi Brian, all, Brian Nisbet wrote:
Leo Vegoda wrote, On 17/04/2012 00:22:
Hi Denis,
On Apr 16, 2012, at 2:32 pm, Denis Walker wrote:
I am not aware of any formal big picture, but I follow the mailing list as closely as I am sure you and many others do. As you will know many of these issues invoke much discussion on the list.
I think we only get one opportunity to do this right. Doing it without a strategy that's been agreed by the whole community seems quite scary.
While I think that Frank has given a good outline, what is "this" to your mind?
Is it abuse contact management, is it data verification? Part of the problem that we hit with the ACM-TF is that data verification is a very big thing and people have a lot of reactions to it. This lead to a decision to try to get the abuse-c nailed down and integrated, before, should the community or TF decide, looking at data verification, and indeed the scope of that.
I think my concerns are that if we have a large problem and solve it in pieces, because the work is done in pieces they might not tessellate well and leave us with something that is a bit broken. In particular, I am concerned that if a proposal for a new abuse-c object is approved but no contact data management policy is approved we just have a new layer of stale data. In general, I think more stale data is worse than less stale data. On the other hand, I can see that discussing multiple policy proposals simultaneously is difficult. I think my concerns would be allayed if the resulting policies (once approved) were implemented as part of a single, coherent programme of work and not as individual projects. That way, I think we could be fairly sure all the pieces fit well together. Regards, Leo