chris at aktivix.org
Sun Jan 8 13:18:42 PST 2006
On Sun 08-Jan-2006 at 02:11:51PM +0000, MrDemeanour wrote:
> Chris wrote:
> > I think it's OK agreeing the article about the promoted wire by
> > passive consensus -- this is what is done for most feature
> > articles... but I really have doubts about changes to the Editorial
> I'm inclined to agree with respect to the Editorial Policy; although
> since the promoted newswire is for the time-being onsidered an
> (a) we really ought to have one, since we *do* take privacy really
> seriously; and
> (b) the one being proposed is unexceptionable (IMO) as far as its
> content goes, and I think it could be approved by passive consensus.
> Arguably the PP is too windy, and there may be other objections to it.
> But given that we currently have no PP at all, and that the *substance*
> of the proposed draft
> (http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Local/UkPrivacyPolicy) is essentially a
> question of fact, I don't see why it couldn't be done by passive consensus.
Yeah, I agree.
> BTW: what alternative process is being suggested here? You (Chris) said
> on 2nd January: "How long do we need to agree this text and the text of
> the feature article and the changes Ekes suggested to the Editorial
> Guidelines -- a week or so (9th Jan 2006)?" - Other than a Network
> Meeting I'm not aware of any other candidate process; and a NM is
> arguably not as open and inclusive a process as a mailing-list consensus.
Well, I think we should leave the Editorial Guidlines
unchanges at the moment -- they have been changed in the
past via discussiosn on this list but with more
So... tomorrow I think the promoted wire could be deployed
Editorial Guidline amandments can stay on hold for the
Shout if you disagree!
Aktivix -- Free Software for a Free World
More information about the Imc-uk-process