Alan Burlison wrote:
Garrett D'Amore wrote:
Trying to use a program to replace human oversight on this is, IMO,
wrong. Until you have a program that has a full natural language
parser and can understand the difference between an assertion that
content is proprietary, and other legitimate uses of words like
confidential and proprietary, this is going to cause a lot of grief.
The problem is that the humans who have been asked to do this haven't
done a thorough job in some cases. Trusting people to be diligent
clearly doesn't work.
IMO, there needs at minimum to be an override mechanism, where a file
can be blessed as not having any bad assertions, without requiring
the *content* of said file to be altered.
Care to elaborate? Were some cases open that should not have been?
Where was the gap?
You've decided to unilaterally change the requirements, it'd be nice to
know what the justification was.
_______________________________________________
website-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
