On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 04:04:43AM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote: > > 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. So, the way I would think it'd work is: 1) team selects one or two months worth of -private posts to declassify 2) team goes through the posts, marking any that shouldn't be released 3) team sends out mails to authors of posts (which might include people whose mails were forwarded to -private, or the family of deceased folks, or others) giving them some notice of what's going on and time to object 4) team collects responses and makes that info available to developers 5) team releases the mails that've been declassified Having default answers for whether mails can be released potentially reduces (3) and (4), but I would've thought those'd be the most easily automatable parts anyway. > 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 > author). Arguably, "do not declassify" notes would make (2) harder, since you'd have to read the entire thread to make sure you didn't miss some, rather than just being able to say "yeah, that thread's interesting" and send mails to everyone who participated. > 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. Well, stuff that shouldn't be private shouldn't be on -private in the first place; so it's only about making it "stuff that shouldn't be private forever". I don't know that making it easier for people to say "this should be private forever" helps that? Cheers, aj
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature