[ProgSoc] Fwd: Regarding the user data wipe(?) on September 30th.
noah.odonoghue at gmail.com
Sat Nov 1 15:49:59 EST 2014
I agree with Thomas on this, you have at least 3 previous CSOs saying this
is a bad idea and yet no rationale. You also have a lot of offers of
donations of storage.
Was the google hangout recorded?
How does the admin team feel about the feedback of remote but current
members not being taken into account? Just because we are members of
Progsoc doesn't mean we are able to attend a meeting in Sydney, Australia.
Full disclosure: I forgot to renew my progsoc account but have done so now.
On 11 September 2014 18:20, sanguinev at progsoc.org <sanguinev at progsoc.org>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> On 11/09/2014 02:34, Jacob D wrote:
> > Hey Roland, The reason that the issue is not being confronted here
> > is because it is on the agenda for tonight. Nothing is set in stone
> > as of yet.
> > I cannot stress enough that this is coming from me as a member of
> > the society, not a member of the executive. This is my personal
> > opinion and it may not be the outcome of tonight, although it is
> > what I will vote towards.
> > I suspect the outcome of tonight will be along the lines of:
> > - Current user data will be online for a month. After that it'll
> > probably go on an external HDD and get chucked in the safe to be
> > forgotten about. + The point here isn't to destroy people's data,
> > it's to make them re-evaluate what they need on our servers. Have a
> > look at this <http://www.progsoc.org/clubs/bharat/> (I know it's a
> > website, but it's an easy example). There is a lot of forgotten
> > content sitting there taking up space that could be better utilized
> > by new ideas from current, active members. Think about it, when was
> > the last time you cleaned out the things in your home directory
> > that you didn't need? One year ago? Five? We have members taking up
> > shitloads of space with data that is barely touched, and we don't
> > exactly have WD & Seagate lining up to give us more SAS drives.
> > - Working websites will be ported, most likely the urls will change
> > to a different format (username.progsoc.org,
> > progsoc.org/users/username, idk) which will probably break a few
> > sites, but string replace should fix that.
> > However I completely and entirely trust Robin in his decisions,
> > he's already done some controversial stuff this year that's worked
> > out so well that I firmly believe he will do what is best overall.
> > Regards, Jacob Dunk, ProgSoc Vice President
> I'm replying to Jacob, but this is to all the executive assuming he is
> presenting your position. I am continuing a discussion on the ProgSoc
> list, and CC'ing admin since they are being represented as incapable
> by the Executive (see below).
> - -------------------------------------------
> So I've tried to read through and understand the rationale for the
> change, which it appears is being hidden/obfuscated since the
> person(s) behind it do not want to disclose. The closest I can find is
> as follows:
> A. To censor/remove content Jacob dislikes by forcing members to
> "re-evaluate what they need on our servers" .
> B. To reduce space usage because Jacob believes the space could be
> "better utilized[sic] by new ideas" .
> C. ProgSoc does not have the capability to support the current data
> usage of members. According to Jacob "members taking up shitloads of
> space with data" .
> All from one message by Jacob (hence I am here attributing the
> rationale to him alone, despite apparent/notional support from Tom D).
> I find point A to be the most problematic, since it speaks to a
> mindset that is exclusive of members and their content. While it may
> be a poorly worded (this is the internet after all) message to say
> that "it would be nice if people took down their old pages when they
> don't need them", the blanket approach to delete/destroy/censor pages
> from ProgSoc (obviously many/most such pages will remain on in
> Internet archives) is heavy-handed.
> Note that point A was not referencing materials that ProgSoc can take
> down, as pointed out by James , due to policy violations. So this
> is purely about taking down content that Jacob has deemed no longer
> worthy of storage/serving by ProgSoc servers.
> Point B also speaks to the same kind of perspective; that the current
> usage less 'good' (for a simplistic word) than new (potential) uses,
> and old ideas are worse than new ones. The subtext being that Jacob
> believes the old pages (and other data?) are not worthy of keeping
> because he thinks other stuff is better. Again, this is Jacob desiring
> to delete data because he doesn't like it personally.
> One caveat to the previous paragraph may be that space is an issue, as
> Jacob has claimed . However, this is difficult to believe when the
> total space used/available is stated to be 1.6Tb . In the near past
> (2006-2011 give or take) ProgSoc has never had issues with space that
> could not be easily solved by either donations of hardware that have
> always been forthcoming (and are so even now ), or be politely
> asking a couple of the worst offenders if they needed to store/mirror
> their data on ProgSoc.
> This roundly brings us to point C, with it being quite clear that
> ProgSoc does have the (potential) hardware capability to support the
> current data usage. This would mean that space is only an issue of
> administration. So if the administrators can point out a real issue
> here then please do so, but it does not appear to be a problem from
> what has been posted to the list.
> So in summary, the rationale so far is censorship and lack of space.
> Since the latter can be solved quite easily without blanket deleting
> accounts, only the former seems to stand up as any justification.
> (Unless the admin team wants to admit they cannot
> build/integrate/manage a server with a few 2+tTb drives in it?)
> It is worth noting that while censorship may seem a pretty heavy
> claim, the pattern of behaviour around the decision itself also speaks
> to this. While we have many requests from members to explain why data
> needs to be deleted [5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17] there has yet
> to be any explanation. The closest seems to be:
> D. You can read why in the minutes of a meeting (after the decision to
> delete has been made) 
> E. You can find out after a meeting 
> F. Come to a meeting ... PROFIT 
> G. Come to Google hangouts and find out 
> Note that the only way for members to gather information or be part of
> the discussion is to attend in person on extremely short notice, or
> attend online on extremely short notice. This is essentially forcing
> out discussion from many members, again censoring/restricting them and
> their input.
> A final observation is that all this speak about space usage has been
> focused on externally visible resources, which again suggests that
> this is censorship rather than actually about space. Without numbers
> or snooping into accounts I cannot provide information (and obviously
> I am not going to snoop even if I could), but we have no knowledge of
> whether the space problems are really webpages, or other data users
> have sitting around. I can only speak for myself when I say that the
> public files/webpages on ProgSoc are a minority of the data in my home
> I will conclude by asking the Executive to justify their rationale for
> deleting data. Please give us a chance to agree with you. That said,
> please explain why this appears to be a censorship issue and not a
> space issue.
> - - SanguineV
> 1. http://lists.progsoc.org/progsoc/2014-September/003443.html
> 2. http://lists.progsoc.org/progsoc/2014-September/003448.html
> 3. http://lists.progsoc.org/progsoc/2014-September/003456.html
> 4. http://lists.progsoc.org/progsoc/2014-September/003470.html
> 5. http://lists.progsoc.org/progsoc/2014-September/003452.html
> 6. http://lists.progsoc.org/progsoc/2014-September/003434.html
> 7. http://lists.progsoc.org/progsoc/2014-September/003437.html
> 8. http://lists.progsoc.org/progsoc/2014-September/003438.html
> 9. http://lists.progsoc.org/progsoc/2014-September/003440.html
> 10. http://lists.progsoc.org/progsoc/2014-September/003442.html
> 11. http://lists.progsoc.org/progsoc/2014-September/003444.html
> 12. http://lists.progsoc.org/progsoc/2014-September/003458.html
> 13. http://lists.progsoc.org/progsoc/2014-September/003447.html
> 14. http://lists.progsoc.org/progsoc/2014-September/003454.html
> 15. http://lists.progsoc.org/progsoc/2014-September/003449.html
> 16. http://lists.progsoc.org/progsoc/2014-September/003459.html
> 17. http://lists.progsoc.org/progsoc/2014-September/003464.html
> 18. http://lists.progsoc.org/progsoc/2014-September/003439.html
> 19. http://lists.progsoc.org/progsoc/2014-September/003451.html
> 20. http://lists.progsoc.org/progsoc/2014-September/003461.html
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32)
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Progsoc mailing list
> Progsoc at progsoc.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Progsoc