Don Armstrong dijo [Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 12:31:40PM -0500]: > > I would prefer removing the possibility of ever implementing it > > without another vote. We can always vote again if someone comes up > > with a workable scheme. > > That puts a whole lot of stop energy in front of anyone who actually is > interested in trying to declassify -private, though; they'd have to come > up with a method, bikeshed the method, and then propose a vote which > still might not succeed. The currently accepted method has shown to be ineffective. And that's a strong understatement. > I know that the vote to disallow declassifying anything before 2008 > stopped me from working on this when I was interested in understanding > the early project history. > > Going forward, another alternative is to: > > 1) Keep the method for the archives; it sucks, but it doesn't really > hurt anything. It hurts in the way that we are promising something that we are not doing, and that we know we won't ever do. > 2) All messages to -private will be declassified within 3 years with the > exception of: > > a) [VAC] messages I understand the reason for current VAC messages to be private. But, is it really important to keep private that you went on vacation to such-and-such for some-duration some years into the past? Only for a small minority of the cases. > b) messages with [PRIVATE] in the subject; all such messages must be > PGP signed with a key in the keyring or they will be rejected by the > mailing list software. Usually conversations are sprinkled with disclosable messages quoting private messages. There is no sane way to go through it automatically without falling into false positives, negatives or both. That is one of the reasons the 2005 GR was never put into practice. And that is one of the reasons why the current text is proposed as a GR.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature