[MLB-WIRELESS] Authority to change website question sparked by SSL debate

[Mike Everest]

In the past, the way I have obtained authority to do anything is to write this sort of message to the official lists:

"Unless anyone objects, I propose that I will do <statement of intent>"

Then if(/when) someone objects, modify the statement of intent and post again ;-)

Regarding the web site, consensus seems (to me) that it is sensible to redirect only the login page to https - assuming that after logon, ssl continues (I can't think of any reason why it wouldn't) then the job is done.

I suspect that the pages with embedded maps will probably complain about secure+insecure items, but that is not too hard to fix (I suspect)

Cheers! 

-----Original Message-----
From: melbwireless-bounces at lists.wireless.org.au [mailto:melbwireless-bounces at lists.wireless.org.au] On Behalf Of Steven Haigh
Sent: Monday, 30 July 2012 10:03 AM
To: coders at melbournewireless.org.au
Cc: committee at melbournewireless.org.au; melbwireless at lists.wireless.org.au
Subject: Re: [MLB-WIRELESS] Authority to change website question sparked by SSL debate

Ok, so its been a week since any kind of input / reply from anyone on either the coders or committee mailing lists regarding this. Throwing it open to public debate and/or ideas.

--
Steven Haigh

Email: netwiz at crc.id.au
Web: http://www.crc.id.au
Phone: (03) 9001 6090 - 0412 935 897
Fax: (03) 8338 0299

On 23/07/2012 8:13 PM, Steven Haigh wrote:
> Hi Russell,
>
> You hit the nail on the head here. There is no method that has been 
> established for any kind of approval / discussion process. In the 
> past, its been a case of just do it.
>
> It has mainly been a do, test, communicate - which is what I still 
> followed. If this should change, then we need a way to actually 
> communicate it with people and also ensure communication doesn't 
> disappear into the black hole as has been the tendency.
>
> At the moment, we still need to move the Google Maps API from v2 to v3 
> at some point, but everyone has been normally quiet on this one.
>
> So, what do the fellows on these two lists suggest?
>
> --
> Steven Haigh
>
> Email: netwiz at crc.id.au
> Web: http://www.crc.id.au
> Phone: (03) 9001 6090 - 0412 935 897
> Fax: (03) 8338 0299
>
> On 23/07/2012 7:27 PM, Russell Smith wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I don't wish to directly enter into the SSL debate here.  But Tyson 
>> and Steve's exchange below does highlight something I've had a 
>> question about for a while.  What and where does authority lie to 
>> actually change the website?  Following that, how do you interact 
>> with that process so decisions can be timely and reach an agreement.  
>> For example, a committee meeting that makes the call and it's done.  
>> But then there are technical changes as well that the committee don't 
>> have a direct interest in.
>>
>> I made substantial changes to the website structure and code and 
>> proposed it be reviewed, but I've seen nothing come of that.  Who 
>> would authorize the 'new' code to be used?  I've applied bug fixes as 
>> directed by committee/exec which is fine and would seem to follow and 
>> reasonable protocol.  I've also thought about doing exactly what 
>> Steve did here and directing all of the domain names to a single one.  
>> But who chooses which one? How do you get an authoritative answer 
>> that must be accepted by all?  Obviously Steve chose the right one as 
>> nobody complained about that!
>>
>> Which returning to the SSL debate in a less public way, should this 
>> be added to the agenda for a committee meeting, discussed and either 
>> approved or rejected.  Then we move on?  It would seem a clearer 
>> approach than emails expressing individual views.  If people feel 
>> strongly, they should make a submission to the committee as part of 
>> the process.  If that is reasonable should it be proposed for other 
>> website works as the way forward?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Russell
>>
>>
>>
>> On 23/07/12 07:39, Steven Haigh wrote:
>>>> You acted without authority by prematurely making the switch in 
>>>> spite what was said by our elected President.
>>>
>>> I think the time frame is a little out there. I enabled SSL, tested 
>>> it over several days, then added the redirect. It was only when I 
>>> emailed the coders list that anyone even noticed the change had been 
>>> made. The discussion between myself and Tyson took place AFTER 
>>> everything was already functional. I have never been aware of any 
>>> other process we have used for web development - including changes 
>>> to the operational aspects of the web site.
>>
>>
>