> On 9/9/12 8:43 PM, John Levine wrote:
> > Let's say I write to the IESG and say this:
> >
> > Due to a late night editing error, draft-foo-bar-42 which I
> > submitted yesterday contains several paragraphs of company
> > confidential information which you can easily see are irrelevant to
> > the draft. My boss wants it taken down pronto, even though he
> > realizes that third parties may have made copies of it in the
> > meantime. I will probably lose my job if it stays up for more than a
> > few days. Thanks for your consideration.
> >
> > Is this the response?
> >
> > You didn't make any legal threats, and now that we know the
> > situation, we wouldn't believe any legal threats you might make in the
> > future, so you better check out those burger flipping opportunities.
> No, the response is that we refer you to our policy. As an open
> organization we do not remove information once posted, except under
> extraordinary circumstances.
Exactly. This sort of thing is wh a policy is needed, although I note in
passing that the folks at this hypothetical might want to read up on the
Streisand Effect.
> >
> > What was wrong with the original version which gave the IESG the
> > latitude to remove an I-D if they feel, for whatever reason, that it
> > would be a good idea to do so?
> What original? The draft policy states:
> > An I-D will only be removed from the public I-D archive in compliance
> > with a duly authorized court order.
> > If the IESG were so screwed up that
> > they started deleting I-Ds for bad reasons, no amount of process
> > verbiage would help.
> Certainly, but let's not start from the wrong place to begin with.
> Let's also set expectations that the IESG may be used to clean up after
> other peoples' messes. They have enough to do.
That is if anything an understatement.
> And again, this is best developed with counsel.
A very emphatic +1 to this.
Ned
