[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

Gunnar Wolf writes ("Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list"):
> === BEGIN GR TEXT ===
> Title: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private.
> 1. The 2005 General Resolution titled "Declassification of debian-private
>    list archives" is repealed.
> 2. In keeping with paragraph 3 of the Debian Social Contract, Debian
>    Developers are strongly encouraged to use the debian-private mailing
>    list only for discussions that should not be disclosed.
> === END GR TEXT ===

Thanks for helping to try to get this sorted out.  I'm afraid, though,
that I have decided not to second your resolution.

This is because I have become concerned that different people have
different views about the status quo, and about the effect of a bare
repeal of the 2005 GR:

Some say that repealing the 2005 GR means that listmaster can do what
they want; others say that listmaster can do what they want anyway;
still others think that such a repeal leaves no-one with any authority
to declassify.

If this bare repeal were to be the winning option in the GR, we would
then be left in a situation where the legitimacy of various possible
future courses of action by listmaster would be unclear or disputed.

I think that would be very undesirable for three linked reasons:

Firstly, lack of a clear decision risks aggravation, accusations of
breach of norms, and so on, if people with different interpretations
of the status quo try to act on those interpretations.

Secondly, I want the project to explicitly rule out the controversial
(and, I would argue, unjust) possibility that some much more aggresive
declassification scheme would be established with retrospective

Thirdly, I want to explicitly grant listmaster the authority to make
*prospective* changes to -private - ie, changes to the privacy status
of future messages.  Various proposals have been suggested.  I don't
want those kind of proposals to seem blocked by a GR, or to need
approval by a GR, or to end up being established by a GR and thereby
cast in stone.

Accordingly, even though I voted this text above FD in the last round
of voting, I think I would now rank it below FD.  Seconding it doesn't
seem appropriate.

Thanks, and with respect,

Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>   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.

Reply to: