On Mon, 2021-08-16 at 15:26 -0500, Ted Gould wrote:
I don't think that we should put a specific URL in the FSA. It means that we have to update the FSA for instance if we changed website backends.
URLs are backend agnostic. It could even point to a list kept on gitlab, if that's what needed. The language is intended to settle a specific location where the publishing happens but not in any way it's mechanism. So long as future websites can mkdir and touch lists.txt there should be no issue with having this language in the FSA.
Practically speaking I think it would be good to keep the list in the PLC git repo and then published like meeting minutes. This way there's always an attribution to who changed the file (and hopefully a comment why). We could also obfuscate things like email addresses easier.
I don't like git because it forces a lot of work onto a committee that is already not capable enough to handle the tasks before it. Today we're struggling to get passwords into the hands of non-developers, and likewise this would put important clerical work out of reach of many possible contributors and future committee members.
But I take the point seriously about auditing. Fortunately we don't have to decide any of the specific mechanisms in this vote. To make it easier for us to get this step done and move on to the substantive discussion of mechanisms next.
Regards, Martin