Re: Amendment to Proposed GR: Declassifying parts of -private of historical interest
Jonathan Dowland writes ("Re: Amendment to Proposed GR: Declassifying parts of -private of historical interest"):
> Although this part of the text originates from the original GR text and
> not Don's amendment, my comment applies as much to the amended text so
> I'm threading it here:
>
> On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 05:56:12PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > 3. In keeping with paragraph 3 of the Debian Social Contract, Debian
> > Developers are strongly encouraged to use the debian-private mailing
> > list only for discussions that should not be disclosed.
>
> One issue I have is this amounts to a form of gagging order.
I think it's just a restatement of the well-established idea that
discussions that don't need the privacy of -private should not be held
behind closed doors.
> Have we had an exploration of why people sometimes choose to
> converse on -private, rather than elsewhere? Such analysis (and
> results therefore) would of course have to be on -private too, but I
> put forth the following theory for *some* people choosing to, which
> I have felt myself: some discussions on our public lists have been
> horribly toxic and attract participants who are not otherwise
> constructive parts of our community.
Quite so. IMO that is a good reason to use -private for such a
discussion.
> We are all only human and sometimes we don't have the emotional
> energy to deal with that. -private is, even if it isn't designed to
> be, a virtual safe space.
I don't think there is any need to apologise or feel guilty about such
a choice.
Ian.
Reply to: