On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 05:10:11PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > b) I do not want to be associated with the post in question > In other words, if this showed up in google it may hurt my > future job prospects post ;-). In this case, the post can be > published, just every identifying bit about the author needs > be redacted from this post and the quotes. That's an interesting point, though it's mitigated by the problem that removing identifying information means you need to remove more than just the From: and gpg signature -- I mean a "Cheers,\n==" would nominally have identifying info redacted, but a pretty clear giveaway, and even without anything so obvious, there are fairly impressive ways of matching an author to a post just by analysing their writing styles these days. Certainly the delegates should be allowed to do the above, and if there are posts that someone doesn't mind publishing with a few identifying remarks removed it's a good compromise, but I just think specifying it now is overthinking the problem, which we should do later when we've seen how it actually works in practice. > - - requests by the author of a post for that post not to be published > - will be honoured; > + - If the author makes a resonable case that some material is > + sensitive, then that material is redacted from that post and any > + other post where it has been quoted > + > + - If the author indicates he does not wish to be associated with a > + post, any identifying information is redacted from that post, > + and any quotes in subsequent posts, but the rest of the material > + is published. Removing the quoted material from follow on posts isn't a problem, as long as the "Foo said" stuff is anonymised. But if the text later says "Yeah, that's great, but you said the opposite in <link to message on -devel>", they're identified anyway. > I Think the proposal above still allows the opportunity for > the delegates to make good decisions, while providing them some > firmer guidelines in some of the common use cases. I think it's a good idea to think through these things now, and pass them on to the delegates as guidelines when they're appointed, but putting them in the mandate just seems like overkill. If we're trusting the authors of -private posts to make good decisions on what can and can't be public, can't we trust the future delegates to make good decisions on what processes to follow and special cases to allow? (And if it turns out we can't, we can definitely overrule them) Cheers, aj
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature