It has just occurred to me that the Harvey Birdman Rule [1] may have a bug in failing to explicitly address presumptively-private email conversations. The relevant part of the Rule currently says:
Except in extraordinary cases, private telephone calls, private teleconferences and private in-person meetings shall not be used to discuss *substantive* development of this project. Should such private communications nevertheless occur, participants in such communications are expected to publish summaries of any relevant discussions in a suitable public forum.
I am thinking of adding "private email discussions" (or rewording this plank of the Rule to clearly cover such discussions). This is in the spirit of another plank of the Rule:
No private mailing lists (including but not limited to those governed by the so-called Chatham House Rule) will be used by this project. Public archiving of such mailing lists is strongly encouraged; however, archives are not mandatory and partial archiving is permitted.
- RF
[1] See https://gitorious.org/copyleft-next/copyleft-next/blobs/master/CONTRIBUTING....
+1. Seems clearly in the spirit of the rule.
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Richard Fontana fontana@sharpeleven.org wrote:
It has just occurred to me that the Harvey Birdman Rule [1] may have a bug in failing to explicitly address presumptively-private email conversations. The relevant part of the Rule currently says:
Except in extraordinary cases, private telephone calls, private teleconferences and private in-person meetings shall not be used to discuss *substantive* development of this project. Should such private communications nevertheless occur, participants in such communications are expected to publish summaries of any relevant discussions in a suitable public forum.
I am thinking of adding "private email discussions" (or rewording this plank of the Rule to clearly cover such discussions). This is in the spirit of another plank of the Rule:
No private mailing lists (including but not limited to those governed by the so-called Chatham House Rule) will be used by this project. Public archiving of such mailing lists is strongly encouraged; however, archives are not mandatory and partial archiving is permitted.
- RF
[1] See https://gitorious.org/copyleft-next/copyleft-next/blobs/master/CONTRIBUTING.... _______________________________________________ copyleft-next mailing list copyleft-next@lists.fedorahosted.org https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/copyleft-next
From my perspective in dealing with FCC matters, these seem to be
examples to build off of:
http://www.fcc.gov/exparte http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/ex-parte-rules-2011
Stephen Michael Kellat
On 01/15/2013 09:20 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
It has just occurred to me that the Harvey Birdman Rule [1] may have a bug in failing to explicitly address presumptively-private email conversations. The relevant part of the Rule currently says:
Except in extraordinary cases, private telephone calls, private teleconferences and private in-person meetings shall not be used to discuss *substantive* development of this project. Should such private communications nevertheless occur, participants in such communications are expected to publish summaries of any relevant discussions in a suitable public forum.
I am thinking of adding "private email discussions" (or rewording this plank of the Rule to clearly cover such discussions). This is in the spirit of another plank of the Rule:
No private mailing lists (including but not limited to those governed by the so-called Chatham House Rule) will be used by this project. Public archiving of such mailing lists is strongly encouraged; however, archives are not mandatory and partial archiving is permitted.
- RF
[1] See https://gitorious.org/copyleft-next/copyleft-next/blobs/master/CONTRIBUTING.... _______________________________________________ copyleft-next mailing list copyleft-next@lists.fedorahosted.org https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/copyleft-next
On 01/15/2013 08:20 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
I am thinking of adding "private email discussions" (or rewording this plank of the Rule to clearly cover such discussions).
I wonder if there is an opportunity for interpretation with HBR where the spirit is taken into account? Specifically if there is a "space" between people to effectively "talk out loud" as in a private office (yet electronically)? Would that be acceptable if any *substantive* discussions are subsequently cured?
This would be analogous to the FCC "permit-but-disclose" rule (with exemptions for safety/security etc.).
Thanks for the FCC references Stephen!
--Tom
On 01/16/2013 12:08 AM, Tom Marble wrote:
On 01/15/2013 08:20 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
I am thinking of adding "private email discussions" (or rewording this plank of the Rule to clearly cover such discussions).
I wonder if there is an opportunity for interpretation with HBR where the spirit is taken into account? Specifically if there is a "space" between people to effectively "talk out loud" as in a private office (yet electronically)? Would that be acceptable if any *substantive* discussions are subsequently cured?
Yes, if I understand you correctly; this seems to describe a number of the (hopefully all cured) in-person or telephonic conversations I have had with bkuhn. The same principle should apply to electronic communications such as email or IRC privmsg. I hadn't looked at it this way before, but HBR creates a kind of safe harbor for private "talk out loud" communications provided that the "substantive" portion of it is disclosed. Maybe it's wrong to think of this as "curing a violation". The violation only exists if there is no disclosure of the substantive part.
I may have misunderstood what you meant though, perhaps because I haven't yet had a chance to read Stephen's FCC references.
- RF
On 01/16/2013 12:19 AM, Richard Fontana wrote:
...because I haven't yet had a chance to read Stephen's FCC references. - RF
It should be noted that said rules relate to multi-party open rulemaking proceedings. As an amateur radio operator I have a bit of a proprietary interest in rulemaking proceedings affecting service rules in 47 CFR 97 which is why I have to be aware of them.
SMK
copyleft-next@lists.fedorahosted.org
-
Luis Villa -
Richard Fontana -
Stephen Michael Kellat -
Tom Marble