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

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

Ian Jackson dijo [Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 04:45:40PM +0100]:
> > > >  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,
> above.
> 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.

I am replying to this particular one because, although I found your
previous mail a great summary, I tried to illustrate current
practice. I made the mistake of addressing only "moving a thread out
of private", as we have never "declassified a thread that happened in
private" - But restricting to this (much smaller) set, that's what is
customary: To ask explicit permission from all of the people I am
quoting when sending a public mail referencing a private discussion.

But yes, I agree, it's not exactly synonimous, and we should be
dealing with the broader topic (declassification of what happened long
ago) and not with its easiest corner case.

Reply to: