> On 9/9/12 8:43 PM, John Levine wrote: > > Let's say I write to the IESG and say this: > > > > Due to a late night editing error, draft-foo-bar-42 which I > > submitted yesterday contains several paragraphs of company > > confidential information which you can easily see are irrelevant to > > the draft. My boss wants it taken down pronto, even though he > > realizes that third parties may have made copies of it in the > > meantime. I will probably lose my job if it stays up for more than a > > few days. Thanks for your consideration. > > > > Is this the response? > > > > You didn't make any legal threats, and now that we know the > > situation, we wouldn't believe any legal threats you might make in the > > future, so you better check out those burger flipping opportunities. > No, the response is that we refer you to our policy. As an open > organization we do not remove information once posted, except under > extraordinary circumstances. Exactly. This sort of thing is wh a policy is needed, although I note in passing that the folks at this hypothetical might want to read up on the Streisand Effect. > > > > What was wrong with the original version which gave the IESG the > > latitude to remove an I-D if they feel, for whatever reason, that it > > would be a good idea to do so? > What original? The draft policy states: > > An I-D will only be removed from the public I-D archive in compliance > > with a duly authorized court order. > > If the IESG were so screwed up that > > they started deleting I-Ds for bad reasons, no amount of process > > verbiage would help. > Certainly, but let's not start from the wrong place to begin with. > Let's also set expectations that the IESG may be used to clean up after > other peoples' messes. They have enough to do. That is if anything an understatement. > And again, this is best developed with counsel. A very emphatic +1 to this. Ned