[Duncan's Home] Duncan's Jotter
faq -  feedback -  home 
Members
Logon   -   Sign Up

RE: The case for Conversant

Msg#2685 - RE: The case for Conversant

In response to: 2684 | <<Back | Next>> | Top of Thread | View Full Thread | Reply | Edit

Posted: 5/27/2002 by Seth Dillingham
Modified: 5/27/2002 by Seth Dillingham

On 5/27/02, Mark Morgan said:

>Local backup

Not true. Free-Conversant doesn't provide that, but if you're running your own Conversant server then you can back it up wherever you want to.

You're really comparing Free-Conversant with Manila hosting services, I think.

>Static rendering

True.

>A permission level between member and administrator

I disagree, I think you can do an awful lot with groups and conditionals. However, it would be nice if there were something official.

I would prefer it if people would think of conversation admins as "Editors", and zone admins as the real administrators. Conv admins don't have access to membership data, for example... they only get to affect a single conversation.

Unfortunately, the way most of our hosted sites sites are set up, with only one or two conversations per zone, the difference between a zone and a conversation is badly blurred.

Seth

Enclosures:
None.

Replies:
RE: The case for Conversant ( 5/27/2002 by Mark Morgan, Label: None. )
Good points, and I'll stop hogging Duncan's discussion group with Conversant

Tell ICANN to keep their hands off .org!


Run the HTML validator for this page
Webmaster: web at smeed.org