Re: {SPAM} Re: Trying to reach consensus - Yet Another Alternate Proposal to Declassification of debian-private
Em Qui, 2005-12-08 às 08:07 +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane escreveu:
> 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:
> >> 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.
> Well, if we let anybody read it, it has absolutely no point asking for
> an NDA. Your proposal says that anybody can get read it, if he signs
> an NDA. This procedure could be a useful tool if we restricted it to,
> say, people like Biella Coleman that have a "real use", sanctioned by
> Debian and all, out of the_whole_ archive. (This should not keep us
> from opening up nearly everything else.)
Well, I just wanted to keep my hands off judging for who we want to show
it, I'm just saying "hey, if you want to read, you can, as long as you
respect the privacy of the mailing-list as every debian developer".
But I want to remember that there is still the second form of
publication, in which we select which content will be made public, and
this will be available to anonymous readers.
> >> 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. They are just a formal version of "yes, I understand the
> information I get is confidential; I will treat it as such". I think
> it makes sense for very selected readers that have a good use of the
> whole archive. It is indeed a bit silly if anyone can just sign it and
> get access.
Why? I'm just saying it will be kept private, I mean, not going to be
indexed by google, not appearing in a newspaper and, this way,
protecting the authors.
daniel
Reply to: