On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 08:32:59AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
- - requests by the author of a post for that post not to be published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
Hi,
Jérôme Marant wrote:
- the list of posts to be declassified will be made available to
developers two weeks before publication, so that the decisions
Two weeks is too short to review, IMO.
I didn't read that as a hard time limit between announcement and
publication, but rather as
My biggest problem with all this is that it's gonna mean a lot of work -
for the 'declassifying team' and for people who want to be bothered
about commenting on the process is respect of particular email. Thats
time that I feel could be better spent.
I do understand the motives...
--
Paul
On
On Fri, 2 Dec 2005 12:35:28 +1000, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au said:
(Followups to -vote)
On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 08:30:37AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
The primary reason for this is that the existing messages were sent
to debian-private with an expectation of privacy.
As
Hi,
Rationale:
I have been thinking about the kinds of reasons for not
wanting to have a post to -private published. I came up with two
major (reasonable) scenarios:
a) The post contained sensitive material.
In this case, if a reasonable case has been made for the
Quoting Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
* The team will automatically declassify and publish posts made to
that list that are three or more years old, with the following
exceptions:
- the author and other individuals quoted in messages being reviewed
will be
Hello,
Jérôme Marant wrote:
What is this supposed to mean? If no comments have been made by the
author for eight weeks, messages will be automatically declassified?
It looks like a kind of opt out to me.
True. It may be an idea to have another proposed amendment reversing the
logic, and see
On Thursday 01 December 2005 15.32, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
+ - 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.
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
a) The post contained sensitive material.
In this case, if a reasonable case has been made for the
material being sensitive, and one that the declassification
teams accepted, then the material should be redacted from the
post, and
Here are the urls I didn't find for my other post:
http://vitanuova.loyalty.org/nb/nb.cgi/view/vitanuova/2005/03/13/0
http://www.usenix.org/publications/library/proceedings/sec2000/full_papers/rao/rao.pdf
http://vitanuova.loyalty.org/NewsBruiser-2.6.1/nb.cgi/view/vitanuova/2005/04/06/0
Simon Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hello,
Jérôme Marant wrote:
What is this supposed to mean? If no comments have been made by the
author for eight weeks, messages will be automatically declassified?
It looks like a kind of opt out to me.
True. It may be an idea to have another
On Thu, 2005-12-01 at 08:32 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hi,
...
- the author and other individuals quoted in messages being reviewed
will be contacted, and allowed between four and eight weeks
to comment;
I think the default behaviour should be to keep the post private,
On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 08:30:37AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
I think the default behaviour should be to keep the post private, not to
open it up. That is, if the author and other individuals do not reply,
the message is kept hidden.
The primary reason for this is that the existing
On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 09:56:48PM +, Dave Holland wrote:
On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 08:30:37AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
I think the default behaviour should be to keep the post private, not to
open it up. That is, if the author and other individuals do not reply,
the message is kept
Em Qui, 2005-12-01 às 08:32 -0600, Manoj Srivastava escreveu:
a) The post contained sensitive material.
In this case, if a reasonable case has been made for the
material being sensitive, and one that the declassification
teams accepted, then the material should be
As dicussion follows, I decided to formalize a proposal for a real
declassification of the content on -private.
As I said before, if we're going to choose which material is made
public, we can't call it declassification.
The main points are:
1) Everything except financial information about
(Followups to -vote)
On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 08:30:37AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
The primary reason for this is that the existing messages were sent to
debian-private with an expectation of privacy.
As Matthew pointed out in [0] this expectation of privacy isn't really
that strong,
On Fri, 2005-12-02 at 12:35 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
(Followups to -vote)
On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 08:30:37AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
The primary reason for this is that the existing messages were sent to
debian-private with an expectation of privacy.
As Matthew pointed out in
Hi,
as my email is still not added to debian-private (I don't want to bug
anyone) and it's election time I would like to ask some kind soul to
send me the archives of the last two months of debian-private (need
some background material for voting :-)
If possible please in the next couple of days
19 matches
Mail list logo
