On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 04:08:23PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Sat, 16 Jul 2016, Nicolas Dandrimont wrote: > > I'm very close to seconding it. However, I wonder why, in the second phrase, > > you're restricting the process of objecting to declassification to a GR. > > The text doesn't restrict the objection process to a GR, but to require > that a GR could occur. That occurred to me too, but only after following-up here. Given the comments received though, I guess it's worth being more explicit. > Perhaps the following adjustment: > > 2. Debian listmasters and/or other individuals delegated by the DPL to > do so are authorized to declassify excerpts of -private of historical > interest by any process which [+ at minimum +] provides sufficient opportunity for > Debian Developers to object by GR prior to declassification. > > communicates this more effectively and addresses that concern? Upon reflection, I'd be happy to sponsor this version. I'm convinced that votes on individual declassifications would be awkward, but they're on the table anyhow no matter what this GR says. The net effect of specifying "by GR" here is just ruling out processes that do not give enough time to object, and that's a good thing. Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli . . . . . . . zack@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o Former Debian Project Leader . . . . . @zacchiro . . . . o o o . . . o . « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature