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

Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

Ian Jackson dijo [Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 05:07:47PM +0100]:
> (...)
> So, how about something like this:
>  Title: Acknowledge difficulty of declassifying debian-private
>  1. The Debian Project regrets the non-implementation of the 2005
>     General Resolution titled "Declassification of debian-private list
>     archives".  That General Resolution is hereby repealed.
>  2. In case volunteers should come forward: Permission remains for the
>     list archives (of any messages, whether posted before or after
>     this resolution) to be declassified, provided that the
>     declassification process is at least as respecting of the privacy
>     of posters to debian-private as the process set out in the 2005
>     General Resolution.
>  3. Furthermore, the Debian listmasters remain empowered (subject to
>     the usual consultation processes within the Debian project) to
>     revise the rules governing the privacy and declassification of
>     messages to -private.  This includes making measures to make
>     declassification more widely applicable, or easier to automate.
>  4. But, any weakening of the privacy expectations must not be
>     retrospective: changes should apply only to messages posted after
>     the rule change has come into force.
>  5. In particular, we reaffirm this rule: no part of a posting made to
>     -private, which explicitly states that it should not be
>     declassified, may be published (without its author's explicit
>     consent).  This rule may be changed by the listmasters (para.3,
>     above), but only for future messages (para.4, above), and only
>     following consultation, and only with ample notice.
>  5. Participants are reminded to use -private only when necessary.

I would agree to something like this. However, Point #2 has shown to
be not implementable in practice for eight years already. I sat with
Nicolas and we thought about this when he drafted his original GR,
which I am attempting now to resurrect — I (we, but I'm not putting
words in his mouth) want Debian to stop lying. So, as the 2005 GR
*compels* us to create a declassification team that never came to
light, even with the DPL's explicit call in 2010¹, I hold it's only
fair to first and foremost say "we failed at that task, we are not
going to pursue it". So, my reintroduced GR proposal covers your point

   ¹ https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2010/05/msg00105.html

Points 3, 5 and 5 (☺), it's just making explicit and re-stating the
status quo.

Points 2 and 4 remain, so, the only contentious part here (and their
expression is the reason, I believe, Nicolas' amended GR failed): They
are implementation details. I'd rather leave implementation details to
be discussed if they ever need to be. I agree with your #4, but it
would hamper many studies that could be hypothetically carried out to
the list archives. So, I'd rather think about it if need arises later

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: