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 proposal. 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 Discussion. 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 failure. > 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.
Description: Digital signature