29 Sep
2022
29 Sep
'22
3:53 p.m.
Hi Joel,
Thank you so much for your comments. As with those from Antonis, I'll
let the TAC / Chris speak to many of them, but my thoughts on some of
the items are below.
Thanks for sending this, I'm looking forward to
trying the new portal
and seeing its improvements.
Glad to do it! And me too.
1. 3.2.1.9: 2FA - can I please request FIDO U2F support?
This is noted. As as mentioned on my last email, ideally multiple forms
of 2FA will be available.
6. I wondered if prescribing that all work will be in
alignment with
open source best practices --- without defining these --- might provide
a point of contention later, if a user doesn't like the way something is
being done, and given the proposed public nature of the codebase. Given
too that best practices tend to be dynamic and that it may require some
additional work to bring the codebase into line with this requirement
whenever a change is made, it might be worthwhile to soften this
expectation slightly without undermining its intent.
I hear what you are saying here. Ultimately the notion of doing this
work in the public causing contention due to disagreement about how
things are done, is the main reason why some members of our team
(including me at times) have been hesitant to do work in the public in
general. The truth is, though, that has to change – we value open
source, and we hear the call from 44Net members for increased
transparency into what we're doing. Making sure that this codebase is
public is part of meeting those needs. I agree that it will likely come
with some contention, and we must both expect it and take steps to work
through it and keep our work productive.
My hope is that we'll have solid guidelines for engagement around our
open code bases designed to minimize contention. As stated in the Rust
code of conduct:
"Respect that people have differences of opinion and that every design
or implementation choice carries a trade-off and numerous costs. There
is seldom a right answer."
https://www.rust-lang.org/policies/code-of-conduct
We'll definitely need to employ this kind of philosophy in whatever work
we are doing in the public. And like you say, it may be worth softening
our expectation in order to be as productive as possible.
7. Point 2.1.2.1 may have been intended to enumerate
accessibility
standards (there is a hanging colon).
There's just a hanging colon :) Thanks for pointing that out.
I may have missed or misunderstood some sections of the document, in
which case I beg your pardon if my suggestions are addressed elsewhere
in the document or otherwise moot.
I don't see any misunderstandings :)
The requirements document reads very well and it is clear much thought
and work has gone into its production. My thanks to the team behind it
who are obviously striving to make the Portal an improved experience for
all.
Thanks to you for sharing your thoughts here!
All the best,
Rosy
--
Rosy Schechter - KJ7RYV
Executive Director
Amateur Radio Digital Communications (ARDC)
ampr.org