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

Re: GR Proposal: Declassification of -private

* Anthony Towns [Wed, 16 Nov 2005 10:03:39 +1000]:


> On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 01:10:37PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> >   If, on the other hand (but this may be better the scope of another GR?
> >   I'm not sure, just mention if you think it is), this proposal is
> >   accompanied by a change in -privacy policy from now on, namely "posts
> >   will be declassified after three years unless there is a note in the
> >   message disapproving it", the process could become much more
> >   straightforward three years after the GR passes.
  [Swapping the order of your paragraphs.]

> I'm not really seeing how much more straightforward that makes it anyway?

  Currently, the team will have to select posts, and then for each of
  them, contact the author and wait between 4 and 8 weeks. There may be
  a few posts that include "I'm ok with this being made public", for
  which no contact will be necessary. And posts which receive no comment
  will be published at the team's discretion.

  With the change, the team selects the posts, and can publish them
  without having to contact their authors, unless a "do not declassify
  this post" note is present. For these (a certain percentage, X), the
  team would need to contact the authors if they consider that the post
  should be published and want them to change their mind. The difference
  would be that with no reply, it can't be published (with Manoj's
  amendment; otherwise the team would decide whether to overrule the

  That for the objetive explanation. The interesting question is, what
  would that percentage X be? And more importantly, what percentage of
  that X will be posts that the declassification team would consider as
  necessary to publish? IOW, would the "do not publish this" notes be
  abused, or would be they used only for reasonable stuff?

  Also, though it may seem by the above that this is about making the
  job of the team easier, it's really about changing private from
  "everything is private unless stated otherwise" to the opposite. Hence
  my initial comment about whether it fits the scope of this GR or not
  (as Daniel mentions in another posts as well). How do we want private
  to be?

> Hrm, I would've thought the opportunity to change your mind later would
> still be relevant though (in the "actually, on reflection, that's fine,
> make it public" or "ooops, I should've said not to release that"),

  (Seems to me that changing one's mind can happen any time until the
  post is declassified, or even later if it is not after three years?)


Adeodato Simó
    EM: dato (at) the-barrel.org | PK: DA6AE621
A conference is a gathering of important people who singly can do nothing
but together can decide that nothing can be done.
                -- Fred Allen

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: