🚀 go-pugleaf

Carl responded in e-mail (with permission to repost):
|>Correct.  That's why I started this whole thing by saying "a
|>*combination* of university rules and state law".

|Can you clarify this?

At the moment, no.  I've defended things about as far as I can based
on my understanding of the situation.  To put the whole thing to rest
for good (on the net? hah!) I'll have to meet with the people who
started this whole mess and read the relevant rules and laws for
myself.  Since I'll be away at Usenix next week (and, I believe, the
chairman will be gone when I get back), I don't know when that will
be.  Maybe I'll get lucky and the whole thing will expire :-)

|(You can post a reply to the net, quoting this note if you wish.)  It
|seems that the harassment rule might prohibit public display, but
|would not require restrictive file permissions.

I agree that "public access" to the files does not itself seem like it
constitutes sexual harrassment, but I do not have the university rules
to quote from.  Hell, there's always the chance that my explanation of
the reasons behind this is dead wrong.  I don't *make* policy.  I've
been known to suggest it, and I'm occasionally forced to improvise,
but I'm not on the computer committee.


				"But *sniff*, you will come
				 back to play with us again,
				 won't you?"

					"Of *course* I will!
					 On the second Tuesday
					 of next week."

				"Hooway! Hooway!"
				"Wait!  The *second* Tuesday?"
--
J Greely (jgreely@cis.ohio-state.edu; osu-cis!jgreely)