Re: non-secret discussion on debian-project!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 23-09-2004 22:58, Richard A. Hecker wrote:
| 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.
Agree.
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.
|>| 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.
Step one invites lazyness. Do you agree?
| 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!
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.
~ - Jonas
- --
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
~ - Enden er nær: http://www.shibumi.org/eoti.htm
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFBU+OVn7DbMsAkQLgRAtRWAKCSX1ZCaSySR1wRh5h+4ILg7NRWOQCfdbmF
W8b3jygL40dnowlSZX0X8KA=
=VgOA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: