Re: debian-private declassification team (looking for one)
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 01:59:53PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> The vote is there and we cannot change the past;
I do not want to change the past.
> the vote gives a
> process (as Bernhard observed in a different post) and shows our
> willingness to be transparent. Are you proposing to state explicitly
> that the vote is moot?
No it is not. In the sense of Bernd the vote just shows our
willingness. But the effect of the vote is in my opinion not more. (In
a similar way we could vote on having nice weather conditions next
summer. I would agree on this, but I think there is nothing we can
really do about the realisation of this vote.)
> I disagree, it is not. Still it is currently not
> implemented. The only thing that has changed is that we now clearly
> state that it is so and detail what is needed to go forward. Are you
> against any of the above? I personally see no regression in all that.
I do not want to stop any volunteer to do the work. I just doubt there
will be anybody.
> > To throw in some fire into the discussion: If somebody want's us to do
> > this work, he should probably pay for this. IMHO this kind of work
> > needs some more motivation than just that some people decided. If
> > nobody is willing to pay for the work which has to be done (not the
> > content which is free for sure) there is obviosely not enough interest
> > in getting the work done. (And I personally would vote against spending
> > Debian's own money for this.)
>
> This is a very slippery rope:
Yes, this was intended.
> it is us who voted, not someone external to the project;
To stick to my example above: If we would vote on good weather
conditions, do you think we are really responsible to start working on
this just because we voted on it? You just have no handle on volunteers
to do a boring job like this.
> arguing now that that someone should pay, if she really
> cares about obtaining the result, sounds very weird.
Well not really. We agreed that somebody is *allowed* to do the work
(instead of keeping the information secret). We did not voted on the
means which are needed that someone really does the work. (If I
remember correctly I *intentionally* did not voted on this GR because
I was wondering who would really do the work.)
My ulterior motive in this suggestion was: How we can practically find
out whether some is *really* interested in a work which consumes a team
of DDs spare time.
> But OK, that was
> just to heat the discussion (do we really need that?), so I probably
> shouldn't have bitten :)
Yes, the main motivation was "do we really need that?" and stretching
the idea a bit to some provoking ends. Also my answer to your arguing
was not completely honest, just continue provoking. And I go even
further: I will probably not continue to spend my time on discussing
this issue - it is probably wasted as well, because it just does not
change the issue as it is.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: