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?) Cheers, aj
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature