From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11937 invoked by alias); 28 Apr 2003 15:05:20 -0000 Mailing-List: contact overseers-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: overseers-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 11928 invoked from network); 28 Apr 2003 15:05:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO redhat.com) (24.131.133.249) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 28 Apr 2003 15:05:20 -0000 Received: by redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 201) id 6AE1E1B620; Mon, 28 Apr 2003 11:06:07 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 15:05:00 -0000 From: Christopher Faylor To: Per Bothner Cc: overseers@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [postmaster@sources.redhat.com] REQUEST: REMOVE THIS MESSAGE FROM THE INTERNET RE: Christine Datian Message-ID: <20030428150607.GA30908@redhat.com> Mail-Followup-To: Per Bothner , overseers@sources.redhat.com References: <001301c30c51$9f960840$0200a8c0@lvcm.com> <20030427002446.GA19369@redhat.com> <000b01c30c92$ad7b3fc0$0200a8c0@lvcm.com> <20030428053319.GA27263@redhat.com> <3EACC583.3020706@bothner.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3EACC583.3020706@bothner.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-q2/txt/msg00062.txt.bz2 On Sun, Apr 27, 2003 at 11:09:07PM -0700, Per Bothner wrote: >Maybe we should soften this policy. > >My suggestion: $100 payable in advance to remove a message from the >archives. The message is: You did something dumb, but we're willing to >help you cover your ass. However, it's an inconvenience for us, so we >expect compensation. Rather like a bounced check fee. $100 is enough >to get the message across. Anything more might be viewed as >extortionate. $50 might be reasonable as well, depending on how much >work is involved. > >If the work is done by Red Hat employees, it would be perfectly >reasonable for the fee to be payable to Red Hat. However. I think it >may be wiser to make it payable to the FSF, especially if this is >mostly volunteer work, some by non-Red Hat people like Jason, and >because some of the lists may be GNU lists. I like this idea except for the FSF part. Most of these types of requests are from cygwin users, which is not an FSF product. I don't see any reason for the FSF to benefit from my activities regarding cygwin. Actually, I don't see any reason for Red Hat to benefit in this regard, either. But, then, if I gave this person my Pay Pal account that would probably look sort of funny, too. So, I dunno. One problem was that, until this weekend, our policy wasn't advertised. It probably wouldn't have helped in this case except for being able to point at a web page and saying "See, we told you", but I think that's valuable. So, I don't know what to do. I don't want to spend all of my time editing web pages but I sympathize with people who don't want their personal information broadcast, even though the majority of them notice long after the cow has left the barn. This particular person's phone number is already available via google in a couple of places not associated with sources.redhat.com, fwiw. Just to make my life easier would anyone mind if I actually edited this page? I'm spending too much time dealing with this issue. I'd like to just make it go away. Hey, how about a new site policy -- we'll remove phone numbers on request if permission is granted here by more than two maintainers? cgf