This is intruiging this doc. The main flaw is that it is maximalist, trying to remove everything that even looks dangerous, rather than minimalist, trying to keep everything.
The CSPL will need to revise this a lot I think. Tom 2009/7/3 Matt Wardman <[email protected]>: > Wow. > > Trying to remember what stage that was at in the FOI battle. Will have to > dig. > > The second half knows that addresses were going to be hidden. > > Matt W > > On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 7:38 PM, Matthew Somerville <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Michael Bimmler wrote: >> > I just found this on the Parliament Deposits website, no idea whether >> > this has already had wide circulation but I haven't seen it before...: >> >> Looks like it's only recently appeared. It's in response to this written >> answer: http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2009-07-01a.282239.h >> >> I've added an annotation pointing to the document. >> >> ATB, >> Matthew >> >> > DEP2009-1877 Commons 01/07/2009 House of Commons >> > Commission DEP2009-1877.DOC >> > Editing instructions used for redaction. 3 p. >> > >> > The document is at >> > http://www.parliament.uk/deposits/depositedpapers/2009/DEP2009-1877.doc >> > and is labelled "EDITING INSTRUCTIONS USED FOR FIRST ROUND OF >> > REDACTION — >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Mailing list [email protected] >> Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: >> >> https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public > > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list [email protected] > Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: > https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public > _______________________________________________ Mailing list [email protected] Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public
