Re: non-secret discussion on debian-project!
On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 02:55:41AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>
> On 23-09-2004 19:30, Richard A. Hecker wrote:
>
...<snip>...
> | It is wrong for a person to equate d-private == secret_content.
>
> Somewhat true. The problem is that emails not explicitly declared
> differently must be kept secret.
>
> We are lazy so we do not subscribe to additional lists but rely on
> debian-private where we got subscribed by default. We are lazy and just
> want to get hold of "the developers" so we use debian-private. We are
> lazy and do not declare each and every time content posted to
> debian-private is allowed quoted elsewere.
>
> What I see is a practical situation of laziness. I also see a practical
> solution:
>
> ~ * Subscribe all developers by default to debian-project.
> ~ * For each mail posted to debian-private require a one-line explanation
> of why it should be treated as a secret (and if only for a while then
> what would trigger release of the secrecy-lock).
>
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.
>
> | If a concensus developed about the rules, I think we would
> | see less bickering on d-private. I doubt if we could eliminate it all,
> | because flamage was created in our geek community ;-)
>
> I am _not_ talking about noise. Flamage or not, we should not keep
> things secret unless really really necessary.
>
> I am trying to avoid unnecessary secrets. Please do not mix that with
> avoiding noise!
>
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.
BTW, I think your solution might cut down on the noise. But I know you
want to focus on secrecy instead of noise ;-)
Richard
P.S. I agree that secrets should really really be necessary before we
classify them as such.
Reply to: