Draft Privacy Policy, was: Re: Promoted topic added to the site, was: Re: [Imc-uk-process] promoted newswire - moving forward

[MrDemeanour]

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
> Policy and a new Privacy Policy being agreed in this way...

I'm inclined to agree with respect to the Editorial Policy; although
since the promoted newswire is for the time-being onsidered an
experiment, perhaps it's OK. But as far as the Privacy Policy is concerned,
(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.

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.

-- 
Jack.