Op ma, 14-11-2005 te 23:24 -0600, schreef Manoj Srivastava: > ###################################################################### > In accordance with principles of openness and transparency, > Debian will seek to declassify and publish posts of historical or > ongoing significance made to the Debian Private Mailing List. > > This process will be undertaken under the following constraints: > > * The Debian Project Leader will delegate one or more volunteers > to form the "debian-private declassification team". > > * The team will automatically declassify and publish posts made to > that list after three years, with the following exceptions: > > - the author and any named recipients of messages being reviewed > will be contacted, and allowed between four and eight weeks to > - comment; > + comment; and requests by the authors of the post shall be > + honoured. > > - posts that reveal financial information about individuals or > organisations other than Debian, will have that information > removed; > > - posts of no historical or other relevance, such as vacation > announcements, or posts that have no content after personal > information is removed, will not be published, unless the > author requests they be published; > > - publication of posts that would reveal otherwise unpublished > security vulnerabilities in currently supported releases of a > Debian distribution will be deferred; > > - - requests by the authors of posts, or others who would be > + - requests by people other than the author who would be > affected by the publication of the post, will be taken into > account by the declassification team; > > - the list of posts to be declassified will be made available to > developers two weeks before publication, so that the decisions > of the team may be overruled by the developer body, if > necessary. > ###################################################################### I second this proposal, in this form. It's just the sensible thing to do, while I agree with your note that you don't want to force people to make their private posts public. Perhaps a sensible compromise between your position and Anthony's could be to propose that requests of authors be honoured unless a compelling reason to the contrary is presented and explained, yada yada. But I'm not going to push it that far that I'll propose a second amendment to that effect. -- .../ -/ ---/ .--./ / .--/ .-/ .../ -/ ../ -./ --./ / -.--/ ---/ ..-/ .-./ / -/ ../ --/ ./ / .--/ ../ -/ ..../ / -../ ./ -.-./ ---/ -../ ../ -./ --./ / --/ -.--/ / .../ ../ --./ -./ .-/ -/ ..-/ .-./ ./ .-.-.-/ / --/ ---/ .-./ .../ ./ / ../ .../ / ---/ ..-/ -/ -../ .-/ -/ ./ -../ / -/ ./ -.-./ ..../ -./ ---/ .-../ ---/ --./ -.--/ / .-/ -./ -.--/ .--/ .-/ -.--/ .-.-.-/ / ...-.-/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part