[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge difficulty of declassifying debian-private

Gunnar Wolf writes ("Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge difficulty of declassifying debian-private"):
> Ian Jackson dijo [Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 03:25:49PM +0100]:
> > Oh, I forgot one:
> > 
> > >  Proponent    Is declassification of       How might the rules
> > > 	        old posts permissible,       for -private be changed
> > > 	        and if so how ?              in the future ?
> > > 
> > >  ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> >    Status Quo   Difficult/unlikely -         New GR needed.[3]
> >                 2005 GR procedure.           
> I would argue that the current status quo follows somewhat closely
> what Iain suggests to document: We have had several threads starting
> in private, then somebody requests the permission from A, B and C to
> quote their parts, and moves the discussion to -project or
> wherever. Yes, a GR is needed because what is documented as the will
> of the project is systematically breached.

I'm afraid I don't follow.  I agree with everything you say, but I
don't understand why you say it now in response to what you quote,

Do you find my summary (above) inaccurate ?

It seems to me that what you describe with ABC etc., is "difficult"
and is in accorance with the 2005 GR procedure.  I haven't explained
the 2005 GR procedure in detail in my summary, of course.


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: