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

Re: GR Proposal: Declassification of -private

On Tuesday 15 November 2005 03.08, Anthony Towns wrote:
> And beyond that, there really are a lot of good ideas stuck in the
> -private archives that it'd be nice to be able to refer to properly.

This seems to be the only reason to me - the other stated reasons can be 
paraphrased as 'because govts do it with their secret documents' and 
'because everything in Debian should be public'.

I find the argument about Debian promising that content to stay private 
quite convincing, and in any case beating the kind of reasoning that I 

So, to me, the 'interesting ideas' part is what remains.  Since I claim that 
those really interesting discussions are a minority of the content (even if 
[VAC]'s are dismissed before the count), I wonder if a opt-in solution, 
instead of a systematic declassification with opt-out for some content, 
would not be more appropriate.

But having a default declassification date for future content still seems a 
good idea to me.  So there are two sort-of proposals here.

 - the DPL appoints a d-p declassification team.
 - the team implements the automatic declassification of new content as 
described below.
 - for old content, the team will publish selected content of d-private on 
request.  The guidelines below about not-to-be-published content apply, and 
all authors must consent explicitly.
 - the current published policy is modified to say that postings to -private 
may be published after five years unless the author explicitly states that 
he doesn't wish this.  Authors can make their wish known either in the 
posting or at any later point by notifying the d-p declassification team.
 - this is not the case for [VAC] messages
 - this is not the case for sensitive personal information
 - this is not the case for sensitive corporate information

This needs to be put into better language, but I wanted to float this as an 
informal idea first.  I'm not sure
 - if there should be a 'DPL override' or a 'd-pdt override' for postings 
made by deceased or totally MIA former DDs.
 - if 'sensitive information' needs to be specified precisely.  Obviously we 
could hold a 2 year long discussion of what, exactly, is sensitive 
information, but OTOH I think that in 99% of the cases it should be clear 
what kind of information is sensitive.  And having a list (health, 
financial, ...) has a high risk of not mentioning some kind of sensitive 
information that may come up in the future.  After all, it's not some dumb 
automatic parser doing the declassification.

(And btw, why three years?  Why five years?  I don't really care, and if 
somebody has a reason for a certain number of years...)

-- vbi

Protect your privacy - encrypt your email: http://fortytwo.ch/gpg/intro

Attachment: pgpNl0lxg28kr.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: