Kizmut: +drupal forum

2011-12-19T23:11:29Z

+drupal forum

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:11, 19 December 2011
Line 22:		Line 22:
	That's a pretty big subject, but one observation is thatx it's not open source that's vulnerable to attack, it's sloppy software.		That's a pretty big subject, but one observation is thatx it's not open source that's vulnerable to attack, it's sloppy software.

	open source probably mostly comes with the "managed internally" requirement		open source probably mostly comes with the "managed internally" requirement
	... or at least isn't a difficult constraint		... or at least isn't a difficult constraint

Line 28:		Line 28:

	===Transparency===		===Transparency===
	Publicly accessible (which includes being unobscure) (Do we allow for private forums for specific working groups/topics??) Define "private" - A subforum which only members of a specific usergroup (one identified as a working group) can view or post in.That would be frown upon from a transparency standpoint.... and as it stands everything is available. Exactly, but from a logistical point of view a lot of it makes sense unfortunately. I mean the emails we're sending out now aren't exactly public... It's something to discuss with the Transparency working gorup.		Publicly accessible (which includes being unobscure) (Do we allow for private forums for specific working groups/topics??) Define "private" - A subforum which only members of a specific usergroup (one identified as a working group) can view or post in.That would be frown upon from a transparency standpoint.... and as it stands everything is available. Exactly, but from a logistical point of view a lot of it makes sense unfortunately. I mean the emails we're sending out now aren't exactly public... It's something to discuss with the Transparency working gorup.

	==Possible solutions==		==Possible solutions==
	===phpBB===		===phpBB===
			===Drupal===
			http://groups.occupyboston.org/forum/

Kizmut: Created page with "==What's wrong with the current scheme== * sender email visible to all - leads to folks needing to manage secondary email addresses * clunky archive reading * unable to respond t..."

2011-12-19T12:06:42Z

Created page with "==What's wrong with the current scheme== * sender email visible to all - leads to folks needing to manage secondary email addresses * clunky archive reading * unable to respond t..."

New page

==What's wrong with the current scheme==
* sender email visible to all - leads to folks needing to manage secondary email addresses
* clunky archive reading
* unable to respond to deleted messages
* unable to respond to threads without configured email client
* Unable to squelch out threads on an individual basis

==Suggested requirements==
* public archive for browsing threaded conversations
* ability to respond with just a web browser
* subscriptions to individual threads, with email notification of new postings
* managed internal to #obit -> archives, backups, ability to relocate if necessary

==Host/Software Criteria==
===Managed internally===
===Open Source Software ===

I personally feel like Open Source makes it slightly more vulnerable to attack :( - but then again what forum isn't invaded by bots inevitably.

I guess phpbb is/was open source-ish, but the experience is a bit drab. One thing I'd be very concerned about is administrative control (user groups, weeding out trolls, moderation, etc) and so functionality should really be the first thing we need to look at.

That's a pretty big subject, but one observation is thatx it's not open source that's vulnerable to attack, it's sloppy software.

open source probably mostly comes with the "managed internally" requirement
... or at least isn't a difficult constraint

Being as the GNU-experience is a part of the movement: The proposal will receive greater support if OSS is part of the criteria. We would be writing off OSS by moving from lists since the current system is OSS. -[[User:Kizmut|Kizmut]] 07:06, 19 December 2011 (EST)

===Transparency===
Publicly accessible (which includes being unobscure) (Do we allow for private forums for specific working groups/topics??) Define "private" - A subforum which only members of a specific usergroup (one identified as a working group) can view or post in.That would be frown upon from a transparency standpoint.... and as it stands everything is available. Exactly, but from a logistical point of view a lot of it makes sense unfortunately. I mean the emails we're sending out now aren't exactly public... It's something to discuss with the Transparency working gorup.

==Possible solutions==
===phpBB===

Talk:WG/OBIT/Forum Needs - Revision history

Kizmut: +drupal forum

Kizmut: Created page with "==What's wrong with the current scheme== * sender email visible to all - leads to folks needing to manage secondary email addresses * clunky archive reading * unable to respond t..."