Re: Trying to reach consensus - Yet Another Alternate Proposal to Declassification of debian-private
On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 02:47:07PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'll try to move forward in the direction of a more consensual proposal
> about the declassification.
>
> In this discussion, two points were made clear to me:
>
> 1) It would be really nice to have the d-p archives available to those
> who want to understand better how debian works, and from this
> perspective, the selection of which content will be made available is
> not a desirable thing.
>
> 2) On the other hand, some sensitive material should not be indexed by
> google, nor be available without any criteria. This is certainly the
> point that is raising most of the disagreement.
>
> So, my conclusion is that it would be nice to have two types of
> publications:
>
> 1) Selected Readers
> 2) Selected Content
>
> The first type of publication could embrace the entire content of
> debian-private, but restrictions will be applied for those who want to
> read, basically, the need of identification of the reader and the
> agreement to a NDA on the same terms applied to every debian developer
> about the privacy of the mailing list.
>
> The second type would be open to the public in general, and then could
> be strictly opt-in, since this would be indexable by google, and it's
> desirable that the authors have a choice on that.
>
> This way, I'd like to formalize a new Proposal.
>
> ------
>
> In accordance with principles of openness and transparency, Debian
> will seek to declassify and publish posts of historical or ongoing
> significance made to the Debian Private Mailing List.
[...]
> I hope this is closer to a consensus...
Afraid not. This proposal basically creates a second class of people --
those who we want to sign NDA's to be able to read stuff.
That's even further away from 'openness and transparency' than the
status quo. The idea that developers sometimes have private things
to say is at least defendable; the idea that Debian is joining the NDA
crap is not, IMNSHO.
--
.../ -/ ---/ .--./ / .--/ .-/ .../ -/ ../ -./ --./ / -.--/ ---/ ..-/ .-./ / -/
../ --/ ./ / .--/ ../ -/ ..../ / -../ ./ -.-./ ---/ -../ ../ -./ --./ / --/
-.--/ / .../ ../ --./ -./ .-/ -/ ..-/ .-./ ./ .-.-.-/ / --/ ---/ .-./ .../ ./ /
../ .../ / ---/ ..-/ -/ -../ .-/ -/ ./ -../ / -/ ./ -.-./ ..../ -./ ---/ .-../
---/ --./ -.--/ / .-/ -./ -.--/ .--/ .-/ -.--/ .-.-.-/ / ...-.-/
Reply to: