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

Re: GR proposal: give up on declassifying debian-private (Re: General Resolution: Declassifying debian-private results)

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

>> Formal proposal for amendment to Gunnar's GR: delete all, and replace
>> with:
>>  Title: Acknowledge difficulty of declassifying debian-private
>>  1. The Debian Project regrets the non-implementation of the 2005
>>     General Resolution titled "Declassification of debian-private list
>>     archives".  That General Resolution is hereby repealed.
>>  2. In case volunteers should come forward: Permission remains for the
>>     list archives (of any messages, whether posted before or after
>>     this resolution) to be declassified, provided that the
>>     declassification process is at least as respecting of the privacy
>>     of posters to debian-private as the process set out in the 2005
>>     General Resolution.
>>  3. Furthermore, the Debian listmasters remain empowered (subject to
>>     the usual consultation processes within the Debian project) to
>>     revise the rules governing the privacy and declassification of
>>     messages to -private.  This includes making measures to make
>>     declassification more widely applicable, or easier to automate.
>>  4. But, any weakening of the privacy expectations must not be
>>     retrospective: changes should apply only to messages posted after
>>     the rule change has come into force.

I think you mean retroactive here, not retrospective.

>>  5. In particular, we reaffirm this rule: no part of a posting made to
>>     -private, which explicitly states that it should not be
>>     declassified, may be published (without its author's explicit
>>     consent).  This rule may be changed by the listmasters (para.3,
>>     above), but only for future messages (para.4, above), and only
>>     following consultation, and only with ample notice.
>>  5. Participants are reminded to use -private only when necessary.

Seconded (with or without the minor wording nit), since I think this
should be on the ballot.  (Not sure yet which option I'll be voting for.)

Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: