Re: Amendment to Proposed GR: Declassifying parts of -private of historical interest
On Sat, 16 Jul 2016, Iain Lane wrote:
> (GRs are, of course, always going to be on the table regardless.)
The procedure and declassification could potentially occur to quickly
for a GR to intervene. I don't expect listmasters or any delegate to
actually do that, though.
On Sat, 16 Jul 2016, Nicolas Dandrimont wrote:
> I'm very close to seconding it. However, I wonder why, in the second phrase,
> you're restricting the process of objecting to declassification to a GR.
The text doesn't restrict the objection process to a GR, but to require
that a GR could occur.
On Sat, 16 Jul 2016, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Can you clarify which is which Don?
My intention was to ensure there was enough time and opportunity for
Developers to object before each declassification at minimum.
A public vote over potentially declassifying e-mails would be bad, but I
trust that listmaster@ or anyone who gets delegated by the DPL will
follow a procedure which addresses this issue before it gets to the
point that such a GR is required.
Perhaps the following adjustment:
2. Debian listmasters and/or other individuals delegated by the DPL to
do so are authorized to declassify excerpts of -private of historical
interest by any process which [+ at minimum +] provides sufficient opportunity for
Debian Developers to object by GR prior to declassification.
communicates this more effectively and addresses that concern?
--
Don Armstrong https://www.donarmstrong.com
The beauty of the DRUNKENNESS subprogram was that you could move your
intoxication level up and down at will, instead of being caught on a
relentless down escalator to bargain basement philosophy and the
parking garage.
-- Rudy von Bitter _Software_ p124
Reply to: