[MLB-WIRELESS] Authority to change website question sparked by SSL debate

Steven Haigh netwiz at crc.id.au
Mon Jul 30 10:03:05 EST 2012

Ok, so its been a week since any kind of input / reply from anyone on 
either the coders or committee mailing lists regarding this. Throwing it 
open to public debate and/or ideas.

Steven Haigh

Email: netwiz at crc.id.au
Web: http://www.crc.id.au
Phone: (03) 9001 6090 - 0412 935 897
Fax: (03) 8338 0299

On 23/07/2012 8:13 PM, Steven Haigh wrote:
> Hi Russell,
> You hit the nail on the head here. There is no method that has been
> established for any kind of approval / discussion process. In the past,
> its been a case of just do it.
> It has mainly been a do, test, communicate - which is what I still
> followed. If this should change, then we need a way to actually
> communicate it with people and also ensure communication doesn't
> disappear into the black hole as has been the tendency.
> At the moment, we still need to move the Google Maps API from v2 to v3
> at some point, but everyone has been normally quiet on this one.
> So, what do the fellows on these two lists suggest?
> --
> Steven Haigh
> Email: netwiz at crc.id.au
> Web: http://www.crc.id.au
> Phone: (03) 9001 6090 - 0412 935 897
> Fax: (03) 8338 0299
> On 23/07/2012 7:27 PM, Russell Smith wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I don't wish to directly enter into the SSL debate here.  But Tyson and
>> Steve's exchange below does highlight something I've had a question
>> about for a while.  What and where does authority lie to actually change
>> the website?  Following that, how do you interact with that process so
>> decisions can be timely and reach an agreement.  For example, a
>> committee meeting that makes the call and it's done.  But then there are
>> technical changes as well that the committee don't have a direct
>> interest in.
>> I made substantial changes to the website structure and code and
>> proposed it be reviewed, but I've seen nothing come of that.  Who would
>> authorize the 'new' code to be used?  I've applied bug fixes as directed
>> by committee/exec which is fine and would seem to follow and reasonable
>> protocol.  I've also thought about doing exactly what Steve did here and
>> directing all of the domain names to a single one.  But who chooses
>> which one? How do you get an authoritative answer that must be accepted
>> by all?  Obviously Steve chose the right one as nobody complained about
>> that!
>> Which returning to the SSL debate in a less public way, should this be
>> added to the agenda for a committee meeting, discussed and either
>> approved or rejected.  Then we move on?  It would seem a clearer
>> approach than emails expressing individual views.  If people feel
>> strongly, they should make a submission to the committee as part of the
>> process.  If that is reasonable should it be proposed for other website
>> works as the way forward?
>> Thanks
>> Russell
>> On 23/07/12 07:39, Steven Haigh wrote:
>>>> You acted without authority by prematurely making the switch in spite
>>>> what was said by our elected President.
>>> I think the time frame is a little out there. I enabled SSL, tested it
>>> over several days, then added the redirect. It was only when I emailed
>>> the coders list that anyone even noticed the change had been made. The
>>> discussion between myself and Tyson took place AFTER everything was
>>> already functional. I have never been aware of any other process we
>>> have used for web development - including changes to the operational
>>> aspects of the web site.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4965 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.wireless.org.au/pipermail/melbwireless/attachments/20120730/0bb973bb/attachment.p7s>

More information about the Melbwireless mailing list