Re: master.debian.org bounces your mail
On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 08:07:36 +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 01:39:15AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 02:47:07PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> NDA's have a bad reputation in our community; sometimes they make
> sense.
That's certainly true. However, given the context it would be good to
investigate _why_ they have a bad reputation.
The reason is that an NDA does not promote either transparency or
openness; instead, it promotes obscurity and creates a lot of questions.
In itself, there's nothing wrong with that; indeed, in some cases it
would make sense to ask that some things are not disclosed---after all,
there already is an NDA on -private, and that does make sense. However,
if the intent is to promote openness and transparency, one should aim
for less NDA's, not more; thus, I do not think it will "promote openness
and transparency" if you allow another select group of people to read
the archives, but do not allow them to share the information they have
read.
--
.../ -/ ---/ .--./ / .--/ .-/ .../ -/ ../ -./ --./ / -.--/ ---/ ..-/ .-./ / -/
../ --/ ./ / .--/ ../ -/ ..../ / -../ ./ -.-./ ---/ -../ ../ -./ --./ / --/
-.--/ / .../ ../ --./ -./ .-/ -/ ..-/ .-./ ./ .-.-.-/ / --/ ---/ .-./ .../ ./ /
../ .../ / ---/ ..-/ -/ -../ .-/ -/ ./ -../ / -/ ./ -.-./ ..../ -./ ---/ .-../
---/ --./ -.--/ / .-/ -./ -.--/ .--/ .-/ -.--/ .-.-.-/ / ...-.-/
Reply to: