[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

Micha Lenk dijo [Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 04:53:52AM +0200]:
> TL,DR: Nice proposal, seconded.

Please note that Ian answered to a post, did not yet make a GR

What IMHO should happen is that we have more than a binary GR. That
is, I believe that, if there is a GR with the text I copied from
Nicolas and re-submitted as option 1, and Ian's very sensible ideas as
well as option 2, and I don't know if others will submit a third or
fourth wording, it has much higher probability of changing our current
(broken) status quo than a vote with only one option. Frankly, I
haven't analyzed it yet enough to decide whether I'd vote for my
simpler version or for Ian's more studied one. But I do believe that
having both options will lower the amount of people going for Further

So, I'd like you (and others) to please endorse my original text so a
GR process is open; then, I'm sure Ian's option will also be accepted
as a different option (and am ready to support it myself).

> First of all thanks to Ian for summarizing the late discussions around
> the failed GR so well.

Yes, I also agree here. I did a very simplistic work, while Ian took
the time to spell out the different bits that led to the previous GR's

> Thank you for the new proposal which now addresses my major concerns.
> Retrospective policy changes are now explicitly forbidden (#4). And I
> totally agree that we should not forbid any future efforts to
> declassify debian-private just because we failed to do so for more
> than 11 years now (#2).
> If this is a proposed GR, I do second it.

Oh, so your seconding was hypothetical as well, or it was a
pre-seconding. Good :-)

And, yes, I do share the concerns on #2 and #4, as I said on my
previous mail. But I want, first and foremost, to get us out of this
fake (or, at least, failed) state of lying where we have a
transparency statement that is not upheld in any way. Ian's points are
most sensible. But I think this noise played some part in the past
GR's failure.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: