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

Re: General Resolution: Declassification of debian-private list archives

On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 14:27:01 +1000, Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> said: 

> On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 04:04:31PM -0600, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
>> Time Line: Proposal and amendment Friday, 18th November 2005
>> Tuesday, 29th November, 23:59:59 UTC, 2005 Discussion Period:
>> Tuesday, 29th November, 23:59:59 UTC, 2005 -

> Erm, as a point of order, as per A.2(4), the discussion period
> begins when the resolution was proposed (18th Nov) or the last
> amendment was accepted (which hasn't happened; the last amendment
> not accepted was formalised on the 22nd though). I don't see any
> opportunity for the secretary (or anyone else) to choose another
> date, but I might be missing something.  (Also, the original
> proposal was on the 15th)

> So, afaics, the "Proposal" timeline should be 15th-18th, and the
> (minimum) "Discussion" timeline should be 18th-2nd, with votes able
> to be called anytime after the 2nd.

> The DPL could vary the minimum discussion period to 3 weeks to get
> the minimum discussion period ending on the 9th instead of the 2nd,
> of course.  But, since it's a minimum discussion period anyway, we
> can just avoid calling a vote for a week or so to make sure people
> have a chance to notice.

> Is there really any point to an extra week's delay if there isn't
> any discussion in this coming week though? As far as announcements
> go, the proposal made DWN on the 22nd already [0], and thus also LWN
> etc, and we've already had one week of near silence on the topic.

        I do not see any announcements on the only mailing list that
 the developers are supposed to be reading, namely, d-d-a, so I am
 taking the postion that a full two weeks should be allowed for
 discussion from the time that an announcement made it to that mailing

        Given the surprise expressed by some people when the d-d-a
 announcement came out, and the flurry of comments on this mailing
 list after that announcement, I am sure this is the right thing to

        Since we are trying to retroactively overturn a previously
 publicized privacy policy, with the stated guidelines not giving any
 explicit veto to the copyright holder, I am also convinced that
 rushing into a vote is not the right thing to do.


There comes a time in the affairs of a man when he has to take the
bull by the tail and face the situation. -- W.C. Fields
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: