On Sat, 2008-07-26 at 12:11 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 11:55 AM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 21:08 -0400, seth vidal wrote: > >> On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 17:05 -0400, David Woodhouse wrote: > >> > I'd be very disappointed if we refused to release _anonymised_ vote data > >> > purely on the basis that we think there might be some nutter out there > >> > who wouldn't come out from under his table for a few days if we did so. > >> > >> I'd be disappointed if we were yet another data point of groups who do > >> not handle their users information w/care. > >> > >> It's such a cliche. > > > > Can you explain how it wouldn't be handled with care if it was > > anonymized? > > > > The issue is that the board is the steward of the data. How long does > the data get kept (what is Fedora's data retention policy?) and who is > allowed access to it is something the board should consider. Not just > for useful research, but fishing expeditions by some British Ministry > to see if David Woodhouse was voting or going to the Dr on such a date > and can be held for an additional 40 days because he forgot to mention > that when questioned. [Now David may think thats an ok situation, but > I would lose some sleep over it.. and I am just being selfish here.] Explain to me releasing ANONYMOUS voting data would implicate anyone. > People may also have some 'legal' expectation of privacy unless told > otherwise by banners and signed agreements (updated CLA's). This would > also affect whether the board could give the data out (or have to do > some such thing that any member who comes from Netherlands can't have > their data aggregated with sets given out unless they were told it was > going to be done). Again, how is privacy lost if the data is anonymous. josh _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
