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

Re: GR Proposal: Declassification of -private

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 14:00:57 -0500, Clint Adams <schizo@debian.org> said: 

>> + comment; and requests by the authors of the post shall be
>> + honoured.

> If you're going to respect authors' wishes, how would that differ
> substantially from the current situation?

        The scenarios and proposals, as I see it, are this:

 a) Current: Full opt in: you can't publish any email unless you
    obtain permissions for all authors (primary author, as well as
    people quoted in the email); if an author does not respond, no
    publication can occur.
 b) My proposal: Same as above, but there is a 4-8 week window only in
    which permissions are requested. If there is an objection, we
    still do not publish (or, at least, redact that authors portion of
    the email). However, lack of response means that publication
    occurs, this is the main difference between my proposal abd the
    current situation
 c) AJ's proposal: The authors wishes are taken into consideration,
    but there is no guarantee that they shall be acceded; and, in any
    case, after the window of 4-8 weeks, publication occurs in case
    there have been no responses (or if the objections of the authors
    were overruled)

        I strongly feel that if someone posted under the umbrella of
 secrecy, we should never publish over the authors objections. While
 master does not live in a domain where changing a privacy policy is
 as hard as it is in the EU )or so I am given to understand), we still
 should not take this changing of privacy policy lightly.


I always had a repulsive need to be something more than human. David
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: