[Community-Discuss] ID verification on the Database Working Group mailing list
Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com
Mon Jan 24 11:18:32 UTC 2022
While affiliation is important - I think it’s relatively easy to solve - enforce a rule in the code of conduct that demands that posts contain either a statement of affiliation in the signature - or the company handle you are speaking on behalf of.
If you are speaking in private capacity - the signatures can still be there and a clear statement that you are speaking in private capacity.
This means the companies can deal with the offenders if they speak without authorization or if the signatures are fake.
Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
From: Ben Maddison <benm at workonline.africa>
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 13:09
To: Mike Silber
Cc: Andrew Alston; General Discussions of AFRINIC
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] ID verification on the Database Working Group mailing list
On 01/24, Mike Silber wrote:
> > On 24 Jan 2022, at 11:35, Ben Maddison <benm at workonline.africa> wrote:
> > [...]
> > If a sender's affiliation is not obvious (From: domain, signature, etc),
> > then the chairs and/or moderators should challenge them to state it.
> > Failure[*] to do so should:
> > A) be an indication to the community (and particularly for the purposes
> > to considering consensus) that any arguments presented should be
> > viewed with great skepticism; and
> > B) be a CoC violation, eventually resulting in a ban.
> I accept your point - but think it would be better served on
> subscribing to the mailing list [or to retain your posting rights]
> rather than on a challenge basis. One post escapes the challenge and
> then there are claims of favouritism :-)
Yup, that also seems a reasonable approach that I could support.
Assuming such a disclosure would be self asserted(?), that leaves some open
- How is that information provided to the reader of a message (perhaps
auto inserting a link to a disclosure webpage at the foot of each
- How is the provided information maintained to prevent staleness when,
e.g. a subscriber changes job, accepts a new consulting gig, gets
elected to a board somewhere?
- (Most stickily) to what extent is the provided disclosure verified,
and by whom? This is hard enough in the case of positive assertions,
and seems near-impossible in the case of omissions.
- Probably others...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Community-Discuss