Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Fix up inconsistencies in the confidentiality of FOs and Council Reports #720

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 22, 2023
Merged

Fix up inconsistencies in the confidentiality of FOs and Council Reports #720

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
21 changes: 15 additions & 6 deletions index.bs
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -2283,8 +2283,10 @@ Registering Formal Objections</h3>
rationales,
and decisions <em class="rfc2119">should</em> also be recorded.

A record of each [=Formal Objection=] regarding a publicly-available document
<em class="rfc2119">must</em> be made <a href="#confidentiality-change">publicly available</a>.
A record of each [=Formal Objection=] against a decision regarding a publicly-available document
<em class="rfc2119">must</em> be made <a href="#confidentiality-change">publicly available</a>;
likewise, a record of each [=Formal Objection=] against a [=Member-only|Member-visible=] decision
<em class="rfc2119">must</em> be made <a href="#confidentiality-change">available to Members</a>.
A Call for Review to the Advisory Committee
<em class="rfc2119">must</em> identify any [=Formal Objections=]
related to that review.
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -2534,9 +2536,9 @@ Council Deliberations</h5>
<h5 id=council-decision>
Council Decision Report</h5>

A [=Council=] terminates by issuing a <dfn>Council Report</dfn>,
A [=Council=] terminates by issuing a <dfn export>Council Report</dfn>,
which:
* <em class=rfc2119>must</em> state whether the Council [=sustains=] or [=overrules=] the objection.
* <em class=rfc2119>must</em> state whether the Council [=sustains=] or [=overrules=] the objection(s).
* <em class=rfc2119>must</em> provide a rationale supporting the decision,
which <em class=rfc2119>should</em> address each argument raised in the Formal Objection(s).
* <em class=rfc2119>must</em> include any recommendation decided by the [=Council=].
Expand All @@ -2551,8 +2553,15 @@ Council Decision Report</h5>
indexing all completed [=Council Reports=].
If a Council decision is later overturned by an [=AC Appeal=],
this <em class=rfc2119>must</em> also be mentioned.
[=Council Reports=] <em class=rfc2119>must</em> have the same level of confidentiality
as the [=Formal Objection=].
[=Council Reports=] <em class=rfc2119>must</em> be no more confidential
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Isn't there a problem here that the report might cite material that is confidential, and then the report cannot be less confidential than the material it cites/includes?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This concept of more confidential or less confidential being on a linear scale only works if some assumptions are true. I think of it as a venn diagram where each circle is a group of people who have access. If one circle is inside another, more vs less works, but if they only partially intersect, or don't intersect at all, it doesn't work.

For example, if the Team can see Team confidential stuff, and some of the Council can see AB-confidential stuff, and some TAG-confidential stuff, then the circles are unlikely to nest nicely. It also depends on which of those groups have visibility of the FO.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@dwsinger: yes, but depending on what needs saying, a report might not need to cite such confidential material, and in such cases, could be more public.

@nigelmegitt I was working off the team-only / member-visible / public confidenciality scale, which is indeed nesting. But there might be edge (or not so edge) cases where that isn't quite as neat, and I don't think it's that essential, so maybe "same level" is simpler.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

There's also the ambiguity that "more confidential" could mean "less visible to the same people" (e.g. redacted) or "visible to fewer people"

than the decision or document being objected to.

The [=Council=] <em class=rfc2119>may</em> also issue a <dfn export>Supplemental Confidential Council Report</dfn>
with a more restricted <a href="#confidentiality-levels">level of confidentiality</a> than its main report
when it believes that additional commentary on confidential aspects of the case
would be informative.
However, the main [=Council Report=] <em class=rfc2119>should</em> be self-sufficient
and understandable without reference to Supplemental Confidential Council Reports.

<h5 id=council-appeals>
Appealing Council Decisions</h5>
Expand Down