Posted by TimP on Thu Sep 10 5:08:48 1998
| Distribution: | paneris@i-way.co.uk | lurker@paneris.co.uk |
|---|
There is an inconclusive thread about Site Access Control.But think it is worth getting clear, eventually resulting in a policy.
MylesC>Agree, although I would like to see some justification, FROM ANYONE, of why
MylesC>openness is good. I fully agree that we need to open amongst ourselves (so
MylesC>that we know what is going on and can jump into projects) and I understand
MylesC>that we can use openness as a box to tick to impress some (open?) organisations,
MylesC>but is all openness good? (Some of our customer's pages already have password
MylesC>protection).TimJ.1.>openness gets us business.
TimJ.2.>openness is what paneris is about.
TimJ.3.>openness allows us to run things more effeciently.
TimJ.4.>openness is objectively good.I completely agree with 1 and 2.
3 and 4 need more thought.
openness allows us to run things more effeciently
I think so, as in "no paneris relevant documents should be uniquely held off the network".
However the form of the openeness needs to be addressed, as we don't want to know everything all trhe time.
I like to aim for you can find it if you look, which is probably what openness means anyway.openness is objectively good
Talking with Myles last night I realised that we may be in danger of !x is bad => x is good.
If the only method of communication between people were
the website then we could implement a draconian openess
policy, an enforced conspiracy of doves; but it blatantly isn't.
(one of the reasons why the discussions on line have started up in earnest now is that
WilliamC is not easily available on the phone, previously TT&M have been talking a lot).'closedness' in the form of insider trading is actually illegal, and most forms of corruption
stems from priviledge. So I am happy with not open implies bad.The Americans think that openness is an objective good, as in
their Freedom of Information laws.But our customers are not convinced :(
yours
timP