[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: GR Proposal: Declassification of -private

On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 08:38:09PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>         I have one comment on this: when the posts were made, they
>  were made under the mantilla of a promise of privacy; I think it is
>  wrong to retroactively change the rules without asking the authors
>  for permission to publish.
>         So, change the redaction rules to always listen to the
>  author's wishes, and I think it would be a better proposal.

Suggested wording?

(I'm reluctant to give an absolute veto to someone outside the project,
because when I think of declassification and FOI I think of things like
cost overruns or embarassing memos, which are most likely to attract a
veto from the people concerned, but are also some of the most
interesting things we could get. There's also the issue of letting the
delegates who're doing the work get a say. But otoh, maybe I'm just
being unduly nervous, and it can always be changed later if it turns out
to matter, so hey, why not?)


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: