From: Lukas Kahwe Smith <smith@pooteeweet.org>
Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] We need an Advocacy wiki
Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 19:49:03 +0200
Organization: Hub.Org Networking Services
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <46B4BC0F.3090305@pooteeweet.org>
References: <a5b9f5a05b5dd032d31c3185669fb093@biglumber.com>
	<87lkcrkzyd.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Macintosh/20070728)
In-Reply-To: <87lkcrkzyd.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com>
To: pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org

Gregory Stark wrote:
> "Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg@turnstep.com> writes:
> 
>> Not sure what your definition of normal is; that depends on what you mean by 
>> "registered". If it means just creating an account via web form, that's 
>> harldy an impediment to vandalism. We can certainly give more people the power 
>> to grant write-access to wiki accounts, if that's the perceived hold up.
> 
> Do we have any history of vandalism on the -hackers mailing list? There is no
> approval mechanism for people subscribing to the list. Would people be happy
> if every subscription to -hackers required someone to approve your membership?
> 
> I went to do update the wiki recently, found I didn't have write access and
> gave up and went back to other things. I think any extra barriers are a bad
> thing. It ought to be open until there's a demonstrable problem rather than
> preemptively making it less useful because we anticipate problems we have no
> evidence of.

Well we should definately require a login, even if its just so that we 
can trace who made what changes so that we know who has taken 
responsibility over a given section.

regards,
Lukas