| 1 |
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004, Kurt Lieber wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 09:34:50PM -0500 or thereabouts, Ed Grimm wrote: |
| 4 |
>> Deleting a blog immediately upon a developer leaving could present |
| 5 |
>> technical and legal difficulties. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Can you please elaborate on this? I don't see (m)any technical |
| 8 |
> difficulties and I *certainly* don't see any legal difficulties. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
I understand that the question has been resolved, but for edification of |
| 11 |
the group... |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Disclaimer: IANAL. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Certainly. If someone were to sue Gentoo immediately after a |
| 16 |
developer's blog was removed, in such a manner that the removed |
| 17 |
developer's blog was deemed important (whether or not it was important |
| 18 |
does not matter; since the blog is gone, that cannot truely be |
| 19 |
determined), Gentoo's in contempt of court until that blog can be |
| 20 |
recovered. Of course, judges tend to be somewhat understanding about |
| 21 |
this, but it is really not a good thing to start out with the judge |
| 22 |
annoyed at you. (Keyword "somewhat") |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
I'm lead to understand that 30 days is seen to be something of a minimum |
| 25 |
timeframe for automatic/sysadmin deleting messages, regardless of form. |
| 26 |
(That is, I know a lot of different companies that have invested |
| 27 |
significant lawyer resources to investigate this issue, and all of them |
| 28 |
have a 30 day message expiration cycle, and retain email accounts and |
| 29 |
stuff for 30 days after employee termination.) |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
On the technical side, if the former dev's account deletion was |
| 33 |
automated (that is, the dev said he's gone, and *poof*, the blog's |
| 34 |
purged), if there were any key technical details that existed only on |
| 35 |
the blog, they're gone. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Ed |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives