* Micha Lenk <micha@debian.org> [2016-08-07 12:59:05 +0200]: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > Hi all, > > sorry for joining the discussion late. I just realized when reading > the call for votes that I should have joined the discussion earlier. Definitely. > Am 16.07.2016 um 23:06 schrieb Julien Cristau: > > On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 13:17:24 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > > > >> 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 provides sufficient > >> opportunity for Debian Developers to object by GR prior to > >> declassification. > >> > > I'm not sure I like restricting the opportunity to object to > > Debian Developers. Anything of historical interest is likely to > > involve people who are no longer DDs at the time publication is > > considered, and they should probably have a say. > > What I am missing in this section is a clarification whether this > affects also past messages to -private or only those messages after > this GR has passed and the change is reflected in all the > documentation and is properly announced to all DDs. > > While I am fine with the latter, I oppose this GR affecting any > messages that have been sent in the past. That would establishing some > kind of "ex post facto" law (which by the way is prohibited in many > constitutions for good reasons). I really don't want to leave the > decision whether past messages will be affected or not up to the list > masters. For this reason I will vote "Further Discussion". In my opinion the only point in this General Resolution is allowing the declassification of the early years of -private, where the mailing list was used as a "project" mailing list rather than for discussing actually sensitive matters. I find that we've gotten better at moving threads of interest to public forums over time. I expect a sensible declassification process to allow the original authors to decide on whether their messages should be declassified or not, if an explicit disclaimer has not been put in the message. I also expect the declassification team to present and hash out the process in public before going forward with it, but without having the burden of doing a GR for every little tweak they do. The old GR mandated a process so contrived that the only thing it achieved was discouraging anyone from ever implementing it, while also barring people from ever extracting the really interesting content. I trust the listmasters or their chosen declassification team to come up with a workable process of their liking, and to apply good judgement in unraveling historically interesting threads while upholding the privacy of what needs to be kept private. Cheers, -- Nicolas Dandrimont BOFH excuse #125: we just switched to Sprint.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature