Request to reword "non-owner" accessibility to server #2

Open
opened 7 months ago by decentral1se · 0 comments

That non-owners control a server might not always be a good idea. Under that rule, trolls will claim that they are affected by your server and thus must be able to have control of it. Other dubious organisations would make similar claims about having a stake in what happens on your server. In devising any new manifesto, you need to assume the existence of adversaries who will try to use your own rules against you.

"non-owners control a server" can be re-framed as "non-owners have a say in the democratic organising of the server" when I speak about community-based infrastructure, I do think of the server as a shared resource. There are still security/opsec/etc. concerns to be considered but those can be drafted up with broader involvement imho

Yeah, I think that is better language to communicate the idea without getting confused with saying that anyone should have unlimited access to any server. Could you make a pull request on Codeberg to change that? https://codeberg.org/CooperativeTechno

Just having a read over it now and I am not actually sure where the rewording should be taking place? Any ideas? Happy to take a stab at it otherwise. Just don't have time to dive into this right now...

> That non-owners control a server might not always be a good idea. Under that rule, trolls will claim that they are affected by your server and thus must be able to have control of it. Other dubious organisations would make similar claims about having a stake in what happens on your server. In devising any new manifesto, you need to assume the existence of adversaries who will try to use your own rules against you. > "non-owners control a server" can be re-framed as "non-owners have a say in the democratic organising of the server" when I speak about community-based infrastructure, I do think of the server as a shared resource. There are still security/opsec/etc. concerns to be considered but those can be drafted up with broader involvement imho > Yeah, I think that is better language to communicate the idea without getting confused with saying that anyone should have unlimited access to any server. Could you make a pull request on Codeberg to change that? https://codeberg.org/CooperativeTechno Just having a read over it now and I am not actually sure where the rewording should be taking place? Any ideas? Happy to take a stab at it otherwise. Just don't have time to dive into this right now...
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Label
No Milestone
No project
No Assignees
1 Participants
Notifications
Due Date

No due date set.

Dependencies

This issue currently doesn't have any dependencies.

Loading…
There is no content yet.