[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       opensolaris-arc-discuss
Subject:    Re: [arc-discuss] [website-discuss] ARC case mail logs
From:       Alan Burlison <Alan.Burlison () sun ! com>
Date:       2009-03-18 17:36:51
Message-ID: 49C13133.1050803 () sun ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

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
--
_______________________________________________
arc-discuss mailing list
arc-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/arc-discuss
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]