non-disclosure of infrastructure problem a management issue?

Frank Cox theatre at sasktel.net
Sun Aug 24 19:41:32 UTC 2008


On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 11:27:47 -0800
Jeff Spaleta <jspaleta at gmail.com> wrote:

>  the full details
> can not be publicly disclosed instantaneously due to legal constraint

This I simply don't understand.

If I am minding my own business and walking to the post office, and Joe Bloggs
walks up to me and punches me in the nose, I think I'm perfectly within my
rights to tell my friends and everyone else who wants to listen that Joe Bloggs
punched me in the nose. On the other hand, if I want to date Joe Bloggs' sister
I might tell people who ask me how I got a broken nose that I can't tell them.
But that's not "legal reasons", that's simply my personal choice to keep quiet
about it.

Why should this be any different?  Either something happened, or it did not.
If something happened, then the facts will either be released, or not.  I don't
see how vague, unspecified "legal reasons" could stop anyone from discussing
their involvement unless there is some contractual issue involved, in which
case the person(s) involved in enforcing the contract are the ones who are in a
position to provide the facts.  "I realize that this contract says that
I'm not supposed to talk about this, but in these circumstances perhaps we
should make an exception."  "I agree.  Here is a written waiver of the relevant
contact provisions."  Problem solved.

-- 
MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~ http://www.melvilletheatre.com




More information about the fedora-list mailing list