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.
So, instead of finding the outliers that need to be fixed, and fixing
those manually, you're applying a draconian process whereby *all*
materials for a case will be redacted if any of the "evil" words or
phrases appear anywhere?
This is uncool. As I said, *every* case I've touched in the past couple
of years was fully redacted because of errors either in your script, or
nits in .ms files or errors made by the ARC coordinator in flagging the
minutes "ENGINEERING ONLY".
Btw, I believe "ENGINEERING ONLY" carries no legal value. It doesn't
indicate that the material is confidential, and is instead used to
indicate that ARC meetings (all PSARC meetings) are generally only open
to engineering. (Historically, Marketing folks and such were not
invited to PSARC, only to prevent discussions at PSARC from drifting
away from engineering content and into issues that properly belong with
the business teams.)
Tracking down and fixing each of these cases is a PITA. Especially
since I'm quite confident that none of my cases have any incorrect
assertions (beyond that ENGINEERING ONLY comment in the ARC coordinators
notes, which were *not* posted into the case by me or any other ARC
member or participant) that any of the material is confidential or
restricted in any way.
This feels like make-work to me.
As a "stop-gap", I'd be happy if the redacted case materials could be
restricted to just the materials that have the incorrect assertion,
rather than redacting the entire case just because some (useless IMO)
ARC coordinator or .ms source file contains evil language in it somewhere.
-- Garrett
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.
There is one - 'manual' exposure. That's not been done properly either.
I had at one time believed that the process of marking a case open
(which does involve additional human review of the materials, btw),
implicitly performed this "whitelisting" step.
No, it doesn't.
_______________________________________________
website-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
