Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list
David Kalnischkies writes ("Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list"):
> 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.
I propose to make a distinction between the treatment of previous
messages, and the policy for the future.
As regards previous messages, I propose to explicitly affirm what it
seems most people think is the status quo: the privacy of previous
messages to -private will be preserved (subject to the improbable
existence of any volunteers to implement something like the process
defined in 2005).
As regards policy for the future, I want to give listmaster complete
freedom to define and implement a new policy, and to change the policy
from time to time. (Subject of course to the usual kind of
consultation that we would expect from any team in Debian when making
a change which affects many other people.)
For me the ethical basis for this is that people who have posted
messages to -private did so (and continue to do so) on the basis of
the policy in force at the time when they decided to send their
message. It is the policy in force at that time which should control
the message's declassificatioon.
If a new policy is established which is less preserving of the
messages' privacy, then posters are at least free to avoid the list
and send private email, or limit what information they post to
-private. But people don't have the choice to retrospectively un-post
previously posted messages.
I think the recent GR was defeated because of people's concern about
the possibility that their own and others' previously posted messages
might be published without their consent, and against their clearly
AIUI the people who voted against the GR were of the view that the
2005 GR effectively prevented listmaster from behaving that way, and
that the failed GR would (if passed) have explicitly permitted it (and
perhaps even encouraged it).
Does that help make sense of my position ?
Ian Jackson <firstname.lastname@example.org> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.