[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 Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 12:09:37PM +0200, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> Le dimanche, 11 septembre 2016, 11.01:09 h CEST Anthony Towns a écrit :
> > In that sense, my reading of the original version of the GR that just
> > failed was pretty much "eh, we don't care that much about transparency
> > when it comes to ourselves and it's time we admit that". Which is fine,

> I supported the previous GR, and will second Gunnar's, not because I think 
> "we don't care much about transparency", [...]

> I now also tend to think that we, as a collection of individuals, also need 
> some sort of "safe space" to discuss certain things, that can't be public. 

FWIW, that's pretty much exactly what I mean by "don't care that much
about transparency".

ie, sure you care about it -- and don't get me wrong, that's great --
but you're not really that interested in going much beyond what every
other open source project these days does.

To me, Debian at it's best is kind of an extremist leader in
organisational transparency:

 - we released all our source code for everything before 'open source'
   was even invented
 - we've had a completely open bug tracking system since the '90s
 - we do almost everything on public mailing lists or public irc channels
 - when we make decisions by voting, we do it in public and make the tally
   available and publicly auditable
 - our technical committee operates completely in the open (and is
   required to do so!)
 - we encourage everyone interested/involved to come to our conferences

I'm sure there are more; I kinda want to claim meetbot, but apparently
that one was Ubuntu's. Pretty much all those things are or were hard
and people will give you plenty of reasons why you'd be crazy to do any
of them.

> "[...] We promise (and have all 
> members as testimonials) to restrict it's usage to topics that really need to 
> be private"

I don't think we could honestly make that promise (and thus I wouldn't
give a testimonial to it); it certainly hasn't been true in the past,
and (at least, aside from manual moderation of every mail) I don't think
there's any mechanism that would make it so. And "really needs to be
private" is a judgement call on which people will naturally differ,
in any event.


Reply to: