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

Re: GR Proposal: Declassification of -private

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 07:01:16PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > I would suggest that declassification of posts affected by a GR be put
> > on hold if a proposal is made for a GR while the GR process takes
> > place [since the absolute minimum time that a GR can take is 2 weeks.]
> > does cover this, but getting 10 developers to sponsor on short
> > notice may be difficult.
> If you can't get 10 people to sponsor it in two weeks, doesn't that
> mean you probably can't get enough people to vote for it either?

My main concern would be that you'd have to look at it rapidly to
figure out what messages were being freed and remember what you said
in them. [I know that it would take me a while to get around to doing
that if I actually cared about anything that I had sent to -private
being released...]

> Although I guess that'd do away with the "immediate procedural
> vote". The other side is that a GR can take arbitrarily long --
> first by repeatedly doing amendments to delay the start of the
> discussion period, then by delaying the CFV...

Right; perhaps some limited hold on the decision for specific messages
(2 weeks after a proposal made with in the 2 week window) unless 10
(2K) developers have seconded. [The main reason why I suggest it is
because the decision isn't readily reversible, whereas most other
things we decide are.]

> Maybe Manoj's suggestion is enough to make the 10-seconds to delay
> satisfactory?

Most likely; really just depends on how limited the class of people
who can block posts being published is...

Don Armstrong

Unix, MS-DOS, and Windows NT (also known as the Good, the Bad, and
the Ugly).
 -- Matt Welsh

http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: