Re: Amendment to Proposed GR: Declassifying parts of -private of historical interest
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Hi all,
sorry for joining the discussion late. I just realized when reading
the call for votes that I should have joined the discussion earlier.
Am 16.07.2016 um 23:06 schrieb Julien Cristau:
> On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 13:17:24 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
>
>> 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 provides sufficient
>> opportunity for Debian Developers to object by GR prior to
>> declassification.
>>
> I'm not sure I like restricting the opportunity to object to
> Debian Developers. Anything of historical interest is likely to
> involve people who are no longer DDs at the time publication is
> considered, and they should probably have a say.
What I am missing in this section is a clarification whether this
affects also past messages to -private or only those messages after
this GR has passed and the change is reflected in all the
documentation and is properly announced to all DDs.
While I am fine with the latter, I oppose this GR affecting any
messages that have been sent in the past. That would establishing some
kind of "ex post facto" law (which by the way is prohibited in many
constitutions for good reasons). I really don't want to leave the
decision whether past messages will be affected or not up to the list
masters. For this reason I will vote "Further Discussion".
Best regards,
Micha
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2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=qcqj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: