Re: [dp-tf] Quadlogy of person proposals

[Denis Walker <]

Janos Zsako wrote:
> Dear all,
>
>> Just a comment more: don't forget that the core for us is not to have
>> fields to store private data, but, probably, have one_field_more to get
>> the owner authorization to publish them.
>>
>> So, the big problem is that we normally have contacts from our
>> maintainers
>> that aren't owners of all data maintained. The question is who get the
>> responsability to put the "yes" in that field. This is a rule that, I
>> think, we have to build.
>

I am not quite sure what you mean here. I 'think' you are saying you
want some means of recording that you have permission to publish data in
the RIPE Database that you do not own and indicating who has the
responsibility for this data. Is that correct?

> Very good point. I think the best approach is to have the responsibilty
> reside with the maintainer. It would be good to have this in the service
> contract (i.e. the service contract should say that by putting a person
> object in the RIPE database, you acknowledge that you did get the
> approval
> of the person to publish his/her data). This is what we have in the .hu
> registration rules.

Don't forget that not everyone who enters data into the RIPE Database is
a member. So this statement may be better in the Database Terms and
Conditions.

cheers
denis

>
> As far as I remember, the GM is now authorized to change the service
> contract
> in such a way to be mandatory for all members (i.e. we do not have to
> have
> all members sign again). We should bring this up at the next GM. Of
> course
> this should be checked with the lawyers too.
>
> Best regards,
> Janos
>