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still do not publish (or, at least, redact that authors portion of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.
manoj
--
I always had a repulsive need to be something more than human. David
Bowie
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: