Re: more GRs to come

[Micha Lenk <micha@debian.org>]

Hi Don,

On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 02:33:34PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote on the
debian-private list:
> On Tue, 09 Aug 2016, Micha Lenk wrote in response to
> > > [... someone writing on debian-private that the upcoming GR was announced
> > > in advance on d-d-a (<20160710135250.GA15433@roeckx.be>) so that the
> > > recent critics could have been discussed earlier and reflected in the GR
> > > before the call for votes]:
> > I really appreciate that the upcoming GRs were announced early when there
> > was still plenty of time for discussion. But I have to confess that I did
> > not anticipate that an upcoming GR advertised as "debian-private list will
> > remain private" would turn into something that tries to achieve something
> > almost as controversial as the opposite, i.e.  a GR now titled
> > "Declassifying debian-private". For this reason I did not bother weeks ago
> > to check what's going on on the -vote mailing list.  My real life simply
> > seemed to require more attention at that time.
> >
> > Things like this can happen. Using the right to vote for "further
> > discussion" and talking about it is then the only corrective measure
> > available at this stage. Yes, such a timing is unfortunate, and I am sorry
> > that this annoys the people who did care during the discussion period.
> > But when it comes to policy, announcing the plan to do something, and
> > afterwards asking in a GR to do the opposite is a simple way to foster real
> > discussion. 
> 
> I proposed the amendment on 7/16, it was seconded by multiple DDs, then
> accepted by Nicolas, and no one objected for two weeks.
> 
> The amendment is almost exactly the same as the original text, with the
> addition of a paragraph which makes it explicit that listmaster@ and/or
> the DPL has the authority over list archives. This was the understanding
> of Nicolas, and mine as well.

Please, do not take my explanation why I did not engage earlier in the
discussion on debian-vote as an offence against your amendment.  My perception
was based on what has been visible on the surface only.  And it's only an
explanation, not an excuse.

> Finally, for future reference, it's normal for GRs to include options
> which are the opposite of the original proposal. If you care about the
> subject matter, participate in -vote.

Right now we have been called for a vote, not for discussion.  But I will try
to keep an eye on debian-vote in the future so that this won't happen again to
me.

> > Maybe this was intended, but hey, then let's discuss this not on
> > -private.
> 
> You're being very rude to every DD who participated in the discussion on
> -vote, the secretary, and myself by claiming that we intended to mislead
> you.

Sorry, this was ment to be a joke.  I do not believe that you intended to
mislead me, so please accept my apologies.

> Please quote anything I have written in its entirety elsewhere.

Done.

Cheers,
Micha