On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 09:19:53AM -0400, Leon Smith wrote:

Well, I guess that sort of counts as a refusal. What kinds of requests lead you to ask for more information, and what kinds of information have you asked for?

On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 9:01 AM, Ross Paterson wrote:

...

On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 01:15:09PM +0100, Leon Smith wrote:

...

I have a question for Ross Paterson, namely do you decline an account request, and if so, what reasons do you have for declining an account request?

I haven't refused any requests, but occasionally I ask for more information and don't get a response.

This chain of mails looks quite strange to me. Do you have some kind of ulterior motive for these inquiries? It almost sounds like you're trying to get someone to write themselves into a trap. If you're beating around a bush, out with it already. De-drama-ifyingly yours, -- Lars Viklund

Yup, Duncan is exactly correct. We currently use a social process to manage hackage. I'm part of the team that is taking over this social process from Ross Paterson, so I'm trying to understand how it worked in the past. That's my ulterior motive. :-D As I've written in another mail to this list, I'm have a similar job on LtU; in my case a substantial majority of the account requests are spam. And we haven't had a single spam message on the site since we moved to the policies that new accounts must be approved by an administrator before they can post. I'm not sure exactly what to expect in this new job, though it sounds that if we keep the same email approach, that the substantial majority of account requests will be legit. I'm trying to understand those requests that might not be legit. Some people think we should adopt more techical measures to secure hackage, although I personally think that social processes, properly done, can continue to work well, well into the future. Even so, that debate is an entirely seperate issue from trying to understand what it's looked like from Ross's perpsective for the last number of years. Best, Leon On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Duncan Coutts wrote:

On 5 September 2012 14:34, Lars Viklund wrote:

...

On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 09:19:53AM -0400, Leon Smith wrote:

...

Well, I guess that sort of counts as a refusal. What kinds of requests lead you to ask for more information, and what kinds of information have you asked for?

On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 9:01 AM, Ross Paterson wrote:

...

On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 01:15:09PM +0100, Leon Smith wrote:

...

I have a question for Ross Paterson, namely do you decline an account request, and if so, what reasons do you have for declining an account request?

I haven't refused any requests, but occasionally I ask for more information and don't get a response.

This chain of mails looks quite strange to me.

Do you have some kind of ulterior motive for these inquiries? It almost sounds like you're trying to get someone to write themselves into a trap.

If you're beating around a bush, out with it already.

De-drama-ifyingly yours,

Lars, the motive is quite simple. The existing hackage server doesn't have much in the way of security restrictions, we basically have to trust all people with upload accounts. So we have a manual, human process for requesting an account. In that context it's perfectly reasonable to ask for more details if the initial request didn't say much.

In the new server the security is a little better, but we still want to have a manual step to grant uploader rights.

Make sense? It's not a weird conspiracy :-)

Duncan

_______________________________________________ cabal-devel mailing list cabal-devel@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel

On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 03:18:58PM +0100, Ian Lynagh wrote:

On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 03:34:16PM +0200, Lars Viklund wrote:

...

This chain of mails looks quite strange to me.

Do you have some kind of ulterior motive for these inquiries?

What you might be missing is that Ross handles account requests for the current Hackage server, and Leon is one of the team that handles them for the new Hackage server.

I apologize for this accusation then. Judging tone from text is hard, and it felt very passive-aggressive to a casual observer. -- Lars Viklund | zao@acc.umu.se