John Plocher wrote:
Unfortunately, AlanB seems to have unilaterally decided to reinterpret
things to broaden the blocking mechanism from the original requirement
of "Sun Confidential notices must be removed" to the new "any mention
of the words proprietary or confidential must be removed". Worse, he
seems unable or unwilling to believe that he may have overreacted or
misunderstood the requirements...
That is incorrect, I published the rules on this list. Please read
http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/arc-discuss/2009-March/000828.html
I've subsequently tightened those rules slightly to remove some of the
false positives.
AlanB wrote:
Trusting people to be diligent clearly doesn't work.
But it does. Blocking things with the specific IPP required phrases
means that people don't have to be perfect - if they mess up and
overlook something, it is still protected. Unfortunately, by changing
the rules to diverge from Sun's policy requirements, you have created
a set of documents that are false positives that are absolutely not
due to a lack of diligence on the author/owner's part. In the larger
picture, building distributed systems means building in robustness and
allowing the actors in the system to be less than perfect.
There are several hundred cases with phrases such as 'Sun confidential'
in them.
Out of the 10,000+ files in the exposed ARC archive, by your count,
more than 250 have the word confidential or proprietary in them. By
my count last November, less than a dozen had one of the formal IPP
forms in them. Can you show that any of the additional ~240 files you
found are actual violations of Sun's IPP policy, or are you simply
making additional useless work for the case owners?
Yes, the files are in violation. When we have the external mirror
available, the list of files along with the problematic phrases in each
listed file will be available.
--
Alan Burlison
--
_______________________________________________
website-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
