[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: GR: Declassifying debian-private: second call for votes

Ian Jackson dijo [Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 02:16:15PM +0100]:
> Charles Plessy writes ("Re: GR: Declassifying debian-private: second call for votes"):
> > out of context, it is hard to chose between the options that each of you are
> > presenting in this GR.
> > 
> > Could you briefly rebut each other's options ?  I think that it would help a 
> > lot.

Hi Charles, and thanks for this question. I'm answering to Ian's
message, as I mostly agree with him, but there are several points
where we have different points of view.

First and foremost, let me be clear: I do *not* believe my option is
the best. But I stated my preference to have it *available on the
ballot* instead of replacing its text altogether, as happened in the
August GR.

I helped Nicolas draft the original text, and while it is ambiguous,
it has a strong virtue over the status quo: It saves us from lying, it
cleans our face by saying "we would love to, but we failed".

> I support both Option 2 ("Acknowledge difficulty", my proposal) and
> Option 3 ("Remain private", Iain's proposal).  I firmly oppose
> Option 1 ("Repeal previous GR", Gunnar's).
> I think Option 1 is quite bad.  I will rank option 1 below the FD (ie
> the status quo).  I recommend everyone else do so.

I voted 312-, that means, I prefer Ian's option, then Iain's, then
mine, then FD. I really hope this will be aligned with the rest of the
project — but I strongly prefer the gray area where declassification
is not-strictly-but-kindof-authorized-or-maybe-not to the listmasters
to staying firm by a promise we don't intend on keeping.

I do not think that the existence of d-private breaks our SC's promise
not to hide our problems, and as many others have stated, I recognize
there will always be the possibility of private communication between
groups of individuals. So, repealing the 2005 GR basically
acknowledges that there might a group of individuals, a strict subset
of the DDs, that have a common place to talk to each other (while they
try to refrain from doing so whenever possible).

> I doubt that listmaster will be pleased to enter this fray.  Our
> listmasters are sensible people who will not want to act in such a
> controversial area, when their authority is doubtful. 

Let me embrace this half-paragraph. When coming to a vote decision, I
*hope* we can all remember the good work done by our listmasters, and
stop pretending they will breach the project's trust and confidence,
even if they were able to.

>  So this question will drag on with occasional rumblings, perhaps
> for years.  The dispute might finally be ended only by a second GR.

Second? Fourth, rather.

> Please vote Option 1 below Further Discussion, or at least below
> both Option 2 and Option 3.

That's our main disagreement. I see value in "just" repealing the 2005
GR. I think the reason the August GR failed is because it replaced a
"decently good" text with a "better but worse" one — By listing
declassification actions, some people felt threatened by the wording
of the proposed status-quo, or felt it could threaten privacy in the
future given a set of conditions. Not having an
imperfect-but-better-than-FD option such as the original propoal,
slightly over a majority of DDs voted against the GR. I honestly hope
options 2 or 3 win, but would be content if the one I proposed does.

> If you feel that benefits of possible improvements to the transparency
> of -private are negligible, or that they are outweighed by the risk of
> madness on the part of listmaster, or even by the necessary
> discussions (arguments) about the shape of such a scheme, then you
> should rank 3 ahead of 2.
> For you, then, Option 1 is very bad.  If you don't have confidence in
> our current and future listmasters, not do do something bad, then
> leaving listamster with a wide but disputed authority is precisely the
> risk you would want to avoid.

Right. As I do trust the people in the project, and I trust
listmasters not to snap and start publishing d-private "just because",
I don't see this risk as particularly compelling.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: