[MLB-WIRELESS] Authority to change website question sparked by SSL debate
mw at freenet.net.au
Mon Jul 30 12:07:33 EST 2012
In the past, the way I have obtained authority to do anything is to write this sort of message to the official lists:
"Unless anyone objects, I propose that I will do <statement of intent>"
Then if(/when) someone objects, modify the statement of intent and post again ;-)
Regarding the web site, consensus seems (to me) that it is sensible to redirect only the login page to https - assuming that after logon, ssl continues (I can't think of any reason why it wouldn't) then the job is done.
I suspect that the pages with embedded maps will probably complain about secure+insecure items, but that is not too hard to fix (I suspect)
From: melbwireless-bounces at lists.wireless.org.au [mailto:melbwireless-bounces at lists.wireless.org.au] On Behalf Of Steven Haigh
Sent: Monday, 30 July 2012 10:03 AM
To: coders at melbournewireless.org.au
Cc: committee at melbournewireless.org.au; melbwireless at lists.wireless.org.au
Subject: Re: [MLB-WIRELESS] Authority to change website question sparked by SSL debate
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.
Email: netwiz at 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:
>> 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?
>> 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.
More information about the Melbwireless