Dear All,
firstly, I support the move to keep the pages open to the public.
Furthermore, colleagues to whom I've chatted also hold the same view.
Steve O'Neale has referred to some specific issues which I expect will
soon pass and I don't think should cloud our view for these web pages
to remain open.
Secondly, I repeat the need for the name to change to "UKHEPGRID"
as the current name refers to only a subset and is confusing.
Finally, I see no problem in carrying both our "operational" web
and "publicity" webs together. Are they not merely branches of the same
thing ?
Is there any reason why we can't be professional with ALL the pages
we produce ?
Regards, Robin.
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Fisher [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 20 July 2000 14:19
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Public and Private.
Hi,
Sorry to come back on this again.
On Thu, 20 Jul 2000, Steve atlas/opal O'Neale wrote:
> There are a few cases where privacy is required, for example a lot of
> the CERN pages preparing bids for brussels. I have heard suggestions that
> making some of this commercial information public before deadlines would
> result in automatic cancellations.
While I accept that a very few things must be kept private - this should
be the exception.
> I would stress again the need for quality at the "public" level. I
> thought Robin Middleton also expressed this need quite well.
Yes - but I though that Robin's posting saw the public pages as publicity
pages. The pages should state clearly that they are for the benefit of
those working on grid stuff. Maybe at some stage we need publicity pages
with hype for politicians - but for now we want just one structure for the
bulk of the material with free access for all those who might be able to
help us.
Steve
|