On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 03:45:12PM +0000, Bart Martens wrote: > debian-private might make. You've proven that point today on debian-private. Which is either a leak of information, an argument that such a message (if it exists) shouldn't have been on d-private in the first place or you providing disinformation to the public by implying there exists a message in a channel they can't access which doesn't exist in reality but nobody can repel as saying that such a message doesn't exist is leaking information by itself – all of which is in the end an argument for declassification of messages to remove the mystery surrounding it. Or as an "Explain like I'm Five" question: Why is the idea that a process could be proposed by listmasters for declassification which would be subject to review and with objection opportunity so frightening given that declassification happens every day by individuals – without review and without the possibility to object – via (accidental) leakage? > > > I hope that everyone fully realizes that before voting. > > > > And I hope that, at one point, we as a project will learn to trust one another > > and stop micro-managing people that actually want to get things done. > > It's really not about trust and micro-management, but about "what" we want do > decide with this GR. > > For example, your two points quoted above could easily be included in a GR text > using these phrases: > > - "The scope is limited to messages posted on debian-private before > debian-project was introduced." (And I have no strong opinion on whether this > should be included.) > - "The consent of the original author of the message on debian-private is > required before declassification." (I think this should have been in.) No, it couldn't because these are part of the "how" which will probably be a mile long IF anyone is ever attempting to do declassification. For example: "How" are you going to handle mails from people who have by now passed away – or an author who is currently that ill that (s)he has a guardian appointed to handle matters for him/her. And how is that consent even given, verified and recorded… you would need to define all these things or otherwise someone will end up asking a medium who can talk to the dead for proxying the consent OR we need a GR to repel yours with a no-mediums GR because the process outlined in your GR requires consent, but doesn't forbid (specific) proxies giving it. If on the other hand we say: Listmaster can come up with a proposal which can be discussed and as ultima ratio vetoed by GR (or by DPL via delegation revocation) we can adept as we go[0] with input from anyone arriving eventually at a process which can a) work and b) nobody objects to rather than after twenty-something GRs at a process which might work and nobody objects to *enough* to have yet another GR about it. [0] I think, but that is just personal opinion and guessing, to have a realistic stab at declassifying at the very least the first few if not all ever attempted declassifications will be around a single thread done by human beings and the process hence tailored to the real needs of the thread rather than a giant all-knowing fully-automated AI doing it for all threads in a single pass, which is why the previous GR didn't work, but just IMHO. Besides, we talk about d-private. Nobody can honestly believe that an unencrypted mail sent to ~1000 mail addresses is in any sense of the word a secret that the public doesn't and will never know. The only thing it real is: It is non-public archived (on Debian infrastructure… I would actually be surprised if it couldn't be found somewhere else if you look really hard for it as if it were really as private as suggested it would be Debians version of revenge porn to publish it) and that only because listmasters have chosen to make it so. That isn't to say that anything posted there should be automatically public – thinking mostly about VAC messages, expulsions or generic issues of the day like DDs forming a fellowship (with a ring), forking, resigning or any other real-world-leaks-into-my-Debian-time announcement with the appropriated responses – but the idea that it is a safe haven you can say anything on without risking that it will ever become public knowledge is at the very least equally wrong. aka: d-private is Debians archived online version of water-cooler talk. Sometimes, historically significant things happen around the water-cooler, but most of the time… Best regards David Kalnischkies "Three may keep a Secret, if two of them are dead." -- Benjamin Franklin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature