Chris Jenkinson
I think this is largely irrelevant. If we aren't going to take the trouble to be careful when dealing with personal information, then no one should have access to it. Taking shortcuts on it is just foolish.
You mean, anyone who doesn't sign a legal document promising to pay a notable penalty if the Foundation decides they've broken the privacy policy should not be allowed access to the data? That sounds like a great idea. We'll have an all-paid sysadmin team before you know it, because every volunteer will get up and *leave*. Did that bit occur to you?
- d.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
David Gerard stated for the record:
Chris Jenkinson
I think this is largely irrelevant. If we aren't going to take the trouble to be careful when dealing with personal information, then no one should have access to it. Taking shortcuts on it is just foolish.
You mean, anyone who doesn't sign a legal document promising to pay a notable penalty if the Foundation decides they've broken the privacy policy should not be allowed access to the data? That sounds like a great idea. We'll have an all-paid sysadmin team before you know it, because every volunteer will get up and *leave*. Did that bit occur to you?
- d.
Let me be the next to queue up. Why in, as Pogo used to say, the ever-lovin' blue-eyed world would I want to agree to your terms, Chris? What are you going to do if I refuse? Fire me?
- -- Sean Barrett | You are trapped in a maze of screens and sean@epoptic.org | ssh sessions all alike. It is dark, and you | are likely to log off the wrong account.
Sean Barrett wrote:
Let me be the next to queue up. Why in, as Pogo used to say, the ever-lovin' blue-eyed world would I want to agree to your terms, Chris? What are you going to do if I refuse? Fire me?
If this policy were implemented, and you refused, your access to the personal information would be revoked.
I don't know why you would sign up to anything, and I wouldn't want to guess on your behalf. It's your choice; not mine.
Chris
G'day Chris,
If this policy were implemented, and you refused, your access to the personal information would be revoked.
And who, then, would have access to the personal information? *Somebody* must, that much is certain. And we can't afford to pay someone just to look up IP addresses all day.
David Gerard wrote:
You mean, anyone who doesn't sign a legal document promising to pay a notable penalty if the Foundation decides they've broken the privacy policy should not be allowed access to the data? That sounds like a great idea. We'll have an all-paid sysadmin team before you know it, because every volunteer will get up and *leave*. Did that bit occur to you?
Of course it did. The consequences of it don't matter. What matters is that we treat personal information with the respect it deserves.
I imagine there are alternative possibilities to the one you suggested.
Chris
Chris Jenkinson wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
You mean, anyone who doesn't sign a legal document promising to pay a notable penalty if the Foundation decides they've broken the privacy policy should not be allowed access to the data? That sounds like a great idea. We'll have an all-paid sysadmin team before you know it, because every volunteer will get up and *leave*. Did that bit occur to you?
Of course it did. The consequences of it don't matter. What matters is that we treat personal information with the respect it deserves.
I imagine there are alternative possibilities to the one you suggested.
What, give Board Members sole access to it, and let *them* get sacked?
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Chris Jenkinson wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
You mean, anyone who doesn't sign a legal document promising to pay a notable penalty if the Foundation decides they've broken the privacy policy should not be allowed access to the data? That sounds like a great idea. We'll have an all-paid sysadmin team before you know it, because every volunteer will get up and *leave*. Did that bit occur to you?
Of course it did. The consequences of it don't matter. What matters is that we treat personal information with the respect it deserves.
I imagine there are alternative possibilities to the one you suggested.
What, give Board Members sole access to it, and let *them* get sacked?
Board members are no more paid than arbitrators :-)
On 11/14/05, Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org wrote:
Of course it did. The consequences of it don't matter. What matters is that we treat personal information with the respect it deserves.
As one of the people trusted to keep private information confidential, I am somewhat offended that you think that we don't.
Kelly
Kelly Martin wrote:
As one of the people trusted to keep private information confidential, I am somewhat offended that you think that we don't.
As I said in another email, I do think (and hope) that you do keep it confidential. But this isn't a guarantee for the future.
Chris