On Wed, 2008-09-03 at 11:50 -0700, Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote: > Any comments on this? > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/AccountSystem#Account_Termin... > > Mike is setting some policy[1] as per a thread on f-advisory-board[2]. > > [1] http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2008-September/msg00... > [2] http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2008-August/msg00122... > > Feel free to edit that content if you see something that is clear, or > send your comments back here. I believe Mike is subscribed to this > list, so we can get his input when needed. > > - Karsten > -- > fedora-docs-list mailing list > fedora-docs-list(a)redhat.com > To unsubscribe: > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-docs-list I am wondering if we should write a more formal AUP and tack it onto FAS account creation. For example, on the last signup page have the AUP text and a "by clicking continue/finish you agree to these terms/policies.." clause. The AUP should ideally outline reasons for account termination, revocation of some/all privileges, etc..My $0.02...

Any comments on this? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/AccountSystem#Account_Termin... Mike is setting some policy[1] as per a thread on f-advisory-board[2]. [1] http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2008-September/msg00... [2] http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2008-August/msg00122... Feel free to edit that content if you see something that is clear, or send your comments back here. I believe Mike is subscribed to this list, so we can get his input when needed. - Karsten

On Mon, 2008-09-08 at 14:24 +1000, Christopher Curran wrote: > Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote: > >> Any comments on this? >> >> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/AccountSystem#Account_Termin... >> >> Mike is setting some policy[1] as per a thread on f-advisory-board[2]. >> >> [1] http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2008-September/msg00... >> [2] http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2008-August/msg00122... >> >> Feel free to edit that content if you see something that is clear, or >> send your comments back here. I believe Mike is subscribed to this >> list, so we can get his input when needed. >> >> - Karsten >> >> > Line 2: > > These freedoms, however, do not include the right to deceive, > manipulate or otherwise *change* the processes and procedures Fedora > has in place. > > > So the rules can never change, those with power never leave and anyone > who questions them is out? I'd consider revising to make it less > transcendental and more concrete. Add detailed boundaries of what is > wrong and why it is harmful. For example: vandalism, deliberately > creating security issues, self promotion, harassment, and so on. > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/AccountSystem#Account_Termi... I made a couple changes -- see if that helps. I am not necessarily in favor of detailing specific violations because our definitions may differ (or be incorrect). I don't believe it's vital that we do so, either, in order to retain the rights to terminate accounts. Nevertheless, I'm going to shoot a note to Fedora Legal to see whether any further text might be required.

On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 10:31 +1000, Christopher Curran wrote: > Paul W. Frields wrote: > > On Mon, 2008-09-08 at 14:24 +1000, Christopher Curran wrote: > > > >> Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote: > >> > >>> Any comments on this? > >>> > >>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/AccountSystem#Account_Termin... > >>> > >>> Mike is setting some policy[1] as per a thread on f-advisory-board[2]. > >>> > >>> [1] http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2008-September/msg00... > >>> [2] http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2008-August/msg00122... > >>> > >>> Feel free to edit that content if you see something that is clear, or > >>> send your comments back here. I believe Mike is subscribed to this > >>> list, so we can get his input when needed. > >>> > >>> - Karsten > >>> > >>> > >> Line 2: > >> > >> These freedoms, however, do not include the right to deceive, > >> manipulate or otherwise *change* the processes and procedures Fedora > >> has in place. > >> > >> > >> So the rules can never change, those with power never leave and anyone > >> who questions them is out? I'd consider revising to make it less > >> transcendental and more concrete. Add detailed boundaries of what is > >> wrong and why it is harmful. For example: vandalism, deliberately > >> creating security issues, self promotion, harassment, and so on. > >> > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/AccountSystem#Account_Termi... > > > > I made a couple changes -- see if that helps. I am not necessarily in > > favor of detailing specific violations because our definitions may > > differ (or be incorrect). I don't believe it's vital that we do so, > > either, in order to retain the rights to terminate accounts. > > Nevertheless, I'm going to shoot a note to Fedora Legal to see whether > > any further text might be required. > > > > > There is still a lot of fake legalese verbosity in the paragraph. Most > people don't speak legalese, many have no understanding what you are on > about after you start speaking it. Sum it up. > ----- > Fedora project reserves the right to terminate accounts used > maliciously. Accounts may be terminated for: > * maliciously violating or circumventing fedora project's procedures. > * using multiple accounts without permission. > * deliberate damage to the openness, transparency, and equality of the > fedora project. > ----- > That's about all that needs to be there anything else is just padding. > Don't use ten words for something you can say in two. Good points all. I take it you're not inclined to exercise the power of wiki editing for some reason then? ;-)