Re: non-secret discussion on debian-project!
On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 11:06:30AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On 23-09-2004 22:58, Richard A. Hecker wrote:
> | I see this secrecy-lock as a byproduct of d-private and not the main
> | goal. As you acknowledge above, laziness is the issue. Your solution
> | requires lazy people to jump through an extra step.
> First step (default subscription of debian-project) solves the major
> case of "I want to reach most developers so aim at the only list with
> most subscribed, and I am lazy so turn my message into a secret".
> Second step (creation of a new "secrecy-lock" mailinglist) solves a (to
> me at least) corner case brought up through the latest discussion, that
> some subjects are "temporary secrets".
> Sure, those two rules won't catch people both lazy and concerned about
> "temporary secrecy", but it will support either apart.
> | As I said, secrecy is a byproduct. We treat it with an all-or-nothing
> | type of rule. If common sense were truly common, we might have that
> | concensus on the rules.
> Step one invites lazyness. Do you agree?
I agree it would invite laziness. I said it might cut down on noise
because people could still use d-private the way they do today.
Depending on their mail configuration, I suspect much of the noise is
generated by DDs just using reply.
> | BTW, I think your solution might cut down on the noise. But I know you
> | want to focus on secrecy instead of noise ;-)
> I think so too, personally, but suggest subscribing to an additional
> mailinglist, and promptly it will be argued that it would generate extra
> noise. Hey - you even avoid subscribing to debian-project yourself!
I see that argument too, although I feel a little different about
subscribing to d-project. If all DDs were subscribed by default and
d-project were treated the way d-private is today, I would subscribe. I
view that as part of the dues expected of a DD. My mail load is too
high currently leaving less time for other duties. I gave up d-devel
long ago and only have a few optional subscriptions (Yes I know
d-private is optional too ;-). Currently d-private is where most DDs
are subscribed but d-project could serve that purpose.
> The main point of my suggested solution is that we _collectively_
> subscribe, and newcomers are subscribed by default. Differentiating
> between those two is important and must be realized _before_ bringing in
> the topic of noise to the discussion, in order to not miss the point (IMHO).
> Non-secrecy and noise _are_ related, but I strongly believe the first
> has highest priority, and even _if_ generating more noise it would be
> worth it: Avoiding secrets is mandatory (according to our Social
> Contract), while dealing with noise is extra.
I agree with your priority, but I think many DDs see a distinction
between secrecy of content and the secret treatment. I can treat
messages sent to a list as secret without viewing their contents as
worthy of secrecy. One is a behaviour, the other involves a judgement.
Perhaps this distinction needs to be addressed.