Re: Amendment to Proposed GR: Declassifying parts of -private of historical interest
Hi everybody,
Am 08.08.2016 um 16:58 schrieb Don Armstrong:
> On Sun, 07 Aug 2016, Micha Lenk wrote:
>> 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.
>
> This is why the GR text requires that at minimum DDs can object via GR.
That -- and also the listmasters or another DPL delegate deciding about
what/how to release publicly -- would be perfectly fine with me, but
only for any mails posted after the GR is accepted. I just don't want
this GR to change the rules of the past in the same go.
On a related note, I would also vote against any GR to "repeal the GR of
2005 and burry the idea of systematically declassifying debian-private",
as suggested by Holger Levsen. This is because despite my opposition to
the current GR, I do support the rationale behind the 2005 GR:
> 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
IMHO the currently proposed GR tries to solve too many issues at once.
Changing the rules for future mails on -private is one goal that is hard
enough to accomplish but certainly worth it. Cleaning up the backlog of
declassifying the -private archive is another one, but this does not
necessarily need to follow the same rules. So let's decide them
separately, I would say.
For this reason "further discussion" is correctly representing what I
want to vote for.
Best regards,
Micha
Reply to: