On 20 Apr 2006, at 02:52, Tony Sidaway wrote:
Secondly the question of whether the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed by the person performing the protection is of piddling insignificance when set against the fact that the right thing is done.
Policy is that we don't let potentially dangerous content remain while we discuss a problem with a third party who has contacted us with a serious complaint. If this isn't spelled out then perhaps it should be.
I'm sitting here and, over the months, watching people head towards Danny's office actions like moths to a flame. No wonder he doesn't want to advertise them, particularly the more sensitive ones. This latest kerfuffle is a good sign that the process we have set up just isn't enough. The rules are not an end in themselves. We must recognise that the Foundation does important work to keep this and the other projects alive and well funded, and it must be permitted to do that. All the fripperies about whether X or Y followed some rules are immaterial. The work must be done.
The problem seems to be that if even admins cant see what is being done then people will be upset. This is purely a software problem that can be fixed by various means. If the Danny account is to be specially privileged otherwise than all admins need to know. But this of course wont be secret. It would be better to have an invisible office note for admins if this is seen as necessary.
Justinc