On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 12:14:49AM +0000, Nick Phillips wrote: > On Mon, 2016-08-08 at 19:56 +0200, David Kalnischkies wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 03:45:12PM +0000, Bart Martens wrote: > > 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? > > It might be that a hypothetical process would ensure that it did not > make public any message without approval of the author. I believe that > this would be fine. It might however be that the hypothetical process > would make public any message from any author who did not respond to an > invitation to object, posted perhaps in a filing cabinet in a locked > closet with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard"; since > those authors did not object via GR, they would be assumed to be OK > with the process. This would be Wrong. In other words: You believe in the serious possibility that listmasters are evil people who will propose a process violating the interest of these contributors and YOU and every other current developer will not raise their voice against it. Sorry, but all which is missing from a five years old perspective in this completely madeup and irrational horror story is the Bogeyman. I already told you how the Bogeyman would defeat your well intended but completely unspecific consent GR: It would use a medium and you need a freaking GR to remove that loophole while in the proposed scheme you can just tell the Bogeyman that (s)he is crazy and either (s)he fixes the proposal, the DPL fires the Bogeyman and/or a GR stops the proposal. Best regards David Kalnischkies
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature