[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

On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 12:48:02PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> David Kalnischkies writes ("Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list"):
> > On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 05:07:47PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Basic example: How many mails are sent to d-private each month? We know
> > that for public archived lists. We even know that for less public lists
> > like d-companies, but for d-private that is classified information…
> > (that is perhaps not "weakening privacy" for an individual, but for the
> > dev-body as a whole if your reading is very strict. Many things I am
> > thinking of aren't directly related to individuals in fact…)
> Well, I can see why you might think that would be interesting.  I can
> also see reasons for objecting to releasing such information.

Just to ensure we talk about the same: I was referring to:
https://lists.debian.org/stats/debian-private.png vs e.g.
https://lists.debian.org/stats/debian-vote.png .

I would be very interested in an explanation [off-list & encrypted if
it is too private] as I can't come up with a reason why that could be
a concious decision to not show the number of mails sent to d-private
over time as it is done for every other list rather than just an
implementation detail of how that list is handled.

> I don't think the GR process is a good way to develop such a
> scheme/policy/system/whatever.  It is far too heavyweight.

Agreed & what I said already, but…

> I would like us to agree a GR which explicitly authorises listmaster@
> to institute schemes such as you suggest, or such as I have suggested.
> I don't want to tie listmaster's hands.
> > b) tl;dr: "In listmasters we trust"


> That is the option which was explicitly rejected just now.

So what is it what you propose?

2, 4 and 5 are clearly intended to "tie hands"¹ to specific "whatevers"
fitting a given template. And if your believe is that the recent GR
rejects the notion of trusting listmasters I fail to see what 3 is
supposed to achieve.

Best regards

David Kalnischkies

¹ or at least it can be read that way depending on how your personal
interpretation of "weakening" in the context of unencrypted mails send
to ~1000 people is. My example shows it already: I would have said that
after your proposal listmasters could decide on it, but for you it seems
to be weakening already requiring another GR… all it takes to figure
this out is exchanging a few mails, not a freaken GR for each idea…

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: