|
Grex > Coop8 > #9: Validator Volunteer Wanted | |
|
| Author |
Message |
popcorn
|
|
Validator Volunteer Wanted
| 
Feb 5 13:43 UTC 1996 |
A while back, Grex's members voted to open certain services, such as posting
to Usenet news, to validated non-members, that is, people who send in a copy
of some sort of ID, but who don't send in any money. Currently we don't have
Usenet news available, but hopefully later in 1996 we'll be able to offer
Usenet again. When that happens, Grex will need someone to validate these
people. The validator volunteer would need to receive mail, either directly
or at Grex's post office box, read the mail, figure out which ID is
acceptable, and add these IDs to a list of validated people. If you are
interested in volunteering to be Grex's validator, please volunteer here!
|
| 37 responses total. |
brighn
|
|
response 1 of 37:
|
Feb 5 17:05 UTC 1996 |
Since I haven't done the proper thing of giving money because I just
don't have it to spare right now, I'd like to volunteer for this...
it would allow me to give something to Grex.
That is, assuming the non-member validator could be a non-member. 8^)
|
kerouac
|
|
response 2 of 37:
|
Feb 5 20:24 UTC 1996 |
Why is validation necessary to use usenet? They havent been asking
for validation on Nether to use usenet for months, and the world hasnt
come to an end. Its not really any big deal. Just curious about the
rationale.
|
steve
|
|
response 3 of 37:
|
Feb 5 21:04 UTC 1996 |
It's for posting purposes, not reading. The last thing we need is
thousands of people flocking to Grex so they can take out a use once
account so they can spam their favorite newsgroup and go away again.
|
robh
|
|
response 4 of 37:
|
Feb 5 22:44 UTC 1996 |
Yeah, we can let nether.net handle them. >8)
Actually, does nether.net allow posting?
|
kaplan
|
|
response 5 of 37:
|
Feb 5 22:52 UTC 1996 |
I'm willing to be validator too.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 6 of 37:
|
Feb 5 23:53 UTC 1996 |
robh, yep I post using nether all the time...in fact I see quite a
few nether.net addresses on posts in some groups.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 7 of 37:
|
Feb 6 00:16 UTC 1996 |
Honestly, you can ask jared about this, but I'd think Nether's
experience with open usenet allowing anonymosu posting (via trn and
tin) probably is some small measure of proof that staff is a bit
paranoid on this fear of spamming abuse. If it hasnt happened there,
or if it has only very rarely, there's no reason to believe it
would be a big problem here. I just think this is going to be a lot
of unneccesary bureacracy and paperwork to avoid problems that wont
happen that often.
The arguments against this therefore are the same arguments Steve
and others use against policies proposed such as retiring logins. If
the potential abuse involved is minimal, it is not worth the hassle
of preventing it.
|
ajax
|
|
response 8 of 37:
|
Feb 6 00:24 UTC 1996 |
I think the policy was approved by the board or possibly even the
membership, so I wouldn't cite it as proof of staff paranoia.
Discussion of the rationale can probably be found in coop6.
|
carson
|
|
response 9 of 37:
|
Feb 6 02:07 UTC 1996 |
Nether has a MUCH better connection than Grex as well.
|
nephi
|
|
response 10 of 37:
|
Feb 6 06:47 UTC 1996 |
Co-op 7, Item 128 now linked to Co-op 8, Item 9.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 11 of 37:
|
Feb 6 06:52 UTC 1996 |
Er, nope! :)
|
robh
|
|
response 12 of 37:
|
Feb 6 09:14 UTC 1996 |
Re 8 - It was decided my a vote of the membership. Therefore,
if anyone is suffering from paranoia, it's the membership.
(Well, the membership way back when...)
|
carson
|
|
response 13 of 37:
|
Feb 6 14:11 UTC 1996 |
yep yep.
|
brighn
|
|
response 14 of 37:
|
Feb 6 15:01 UTC 1996 |
IS the paranoid nature of the membership under dispute? I'd assumed
that was a well-known fact. Heh. :) :)
|
omni
|
|
response 15 of 37:
|
Feb 7 05:56 UTC 1996 |
If it's not too late to volunteer for this, I'd like to humbly offer my
services.
|
mta
|
|
response 16 of 37:
|
Feb 7 18:29 UTC 1996 |
In this case I'd be concerned not only about *how often* such a problem might
occur, but also *how severe* a problem it's likely to be. I think we have
a pretty good relationship with the powers that be mainly because we are seen
as using our resources responsibly and seeing to it that we can and do help
track down and discourage users who cause real trouble.
|
aruba
|
|
response 17 of 37:
|
Feb 8 00:42 UTC 1996 |
There are some issues the validator will need to deal with. The first one
that comes to mind is that validated logins may be reaped, and in that case
they will need to be removed from the usenet group. Someone is going to have
to keep tabs on this, to make sure the group is kept current. The treasurer
already has to add and remove people from the group; would it make sense for
the treasurer to also be the validator? If so, I volunteer. If not, there
will have to be communication between the treasurer and the validator to make
sure the group is as it should be.
|
scg
|
|
response 18 of 37:
|
Feb 8 02:55 UTC 1996 |
I think the reason they were seperate positions was because it seemed unfair
to make the treasurer do so much. If you want to also be the validator, I
think it's up to you.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 19 of 37:
|
Feb 8 03:08 UTC 1996 |
That's correct. There was (at the time) considerable sentiment for
creating more activities for volunteers, so more users could participate
in Grex's operations. This seemed a fine candidate for a new volunteer
position. Incidentally, the "validator" doesn't do the reaping, so there
is no change in that operation. What the validator does is negotiate
obtaining the validating material, to pass on to the Treasurer (not to
edit the file). What this saves the Treasurer is negotiating with users
for acceptable ID, etc.
|
selena
|
|
response 20 of 37:
|
Feb 8 05:55 UTC 1996 |
<evil grin>
I'll do it.
<cackle>
|
rcurl
|
|
response 21 of 37:
|
Feb 8 06:27 UTC 1996 |
Can a validator that validates only those that don't validate themselves,
validate itself?
|
brighn
|
|
response 22 of 37:
|
Feb 8 07:18 UTC 1996 |
Go to bed, Rane, you've been up too late again...
|
tsty
|
|
response 23 of 37:
|
Feb 8 17:05 UTC 1996 |
<<stay tuned for episode #77 of: Vlad the Validator! coming soon
to a Telecommunications Bill near and dear to you>>
|
steve
|
|
response 24 of 37:
|
Feb 10 01:50 UTC 1996 |
Thats a good point. We might well want to suspend most of the
discussion on this until we know *what* the validator is going to
have to do. I thought I knew, but since the CDA is possibly going
to become law, I haven't the foggiest idea what we need to do.
|