[Systems] Who should legally hold sugarlabs domains/SSL certs, and who should decide who should hold them?

Walter Bender walter.bender at gmail.com
Thu Aug 2 13:58:45 EDT 2012

On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Chris Leonard <cjl at laptop.org> wrote:
> On Question One (Who should decide if the domains be held by
> Conservancy in Conservancy's Gandi account.)  I'd like to propose that
> Bernie continue his due diligence on the technical and logistic
> aspects of such a change and provide a recommendation to the SLOBS
> list when he feels he has sufficient information to make a call.  I
> think we could/should rubber-stamp his suggestion by e-mail in short
> order.
> On Question Two (Who should be the legal owner of the domains?) I
> would propose that for pragmatic reasons already mentioned it may make
> sense for the domain "owner of record" to be the SFC (although as I
> said, I'm open to counter-argument).  This question could also be
> voted on by the SLOBS via e-mail when Bernie finalizes a technical
> recommendation.
> Note:
> I am fully committed to open process in the conduct of Sugar Labs
> business, but in this case I think the following circumstances apply.
> 1) This just seems unlikely to draw significant input from the
> community in an on-line SLOBS meeting via IRC.
> 2) This is exactly the sort of technical and operational administrivia
> that the SLOBs have been elected to address on behalf of the
> community.
> 3 ) This will be announced to the community in due course and
> ex-post-facto input invited.
> 4) In the unlikely event that community input causes the SLOBs to
> reconsider the actions taken, none of these steps are irreversible or
> would result in "sunk costs", no harm, no foul.
> 5) We really don't need a community referendum on our DNS lookup
> tables or certificate supplier, openness in this case requires
> notification, not necessarily solicitation of votes.
> Those are just my thoughts.


> cjl

Walter Bender
Sugar Labs

More information about the Systems mailing list