[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

Bas Wijnen writes ("Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list"):
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 03:07:43PM +0000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Making the discussions public is a way of demonstrating conspiracy theories
> > along those lines are unfounded.
> Wait, this whole declassification is meant to disprove conspiracy theories?

TBH I agree with your reaction to that argument, but:

It seems to me that the question of the privacy or transparency of
-private is an important matter of principle for many people,
including Anthony.

Even though the argument he makes here is IMO weak, I don't think you
or I are likely to convince him.  And I think the same is true for
most other readers here, regardless of where they stand on the issue -
at least, when we are talking about the basic question of what level
of privacy or transparency should apply to debian-private.

I think in the current situation it would be more friendly and
respectful to acknowledge that people have different views, rather
than attempting to persuade.  And if we are going to try to persuade:
I find arguments like those from Russ better than a direct logical
attack on one of the arguments in favour of more openness.  They are
both more friendly and more likely to succeed in swaying the audience.

But, ultimately we are going to have to resolve this disagreement by
voting on it.

IMO what we need to focus on is making the versions that get voted on
be clear, and in particular, to try to ensure that the winning option
is both one which has as broad support as is possible (so we should
seek an outcome which is as good as it can be for everyone, subject to
our irreconcilable differences), and one whose effect or meaning is


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: