Re: more GRs to come
Don Armstrong writes ("Re: more GRs to come"):
> On Tue, 09 Aug 2016, Micha Lenk wrote:
> > But when it comes to policy, announcing the plan to do something, and
> > afterwards asking in a GR to do the opposite is a simple way to foster
> > real discussion.
>
> I proposed the amendment on 7/16, it was seconded by multiple DDs, then
> accepted by Nicolas, and no one objected for two weeks.
As one of the people who supports that amendment, I want to expand on
what Don is saying here:
> The amendment is almost exactly the same as the original text, with the
> addition of a paragraph which makes it explicit that listmaster@ and/or
> the DPL has the authority over list archives. This was the understanding
> of Nicolas, and mine as well.
One of the things that became clear in the discussion is that people
had different views of the pre-2006-GR status quo, and/or of the
effect of simply repealing it, and/or of the desirability of trusting
listmaster to get this right and/or when a future GR should be needed.
The key question, it turned out, was this: supposing there might be
some declassification of debian-private (whether of past or future
messages), should any such declassification necessarily require a
further GR ?
For example, consider my subject-line-date proposal[1] (that sank
without a trace). Many readings of the original GR (particularly with
its Subject line of `will remain private') would prohibit it without
another GR.
[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2016/07/msg00021.html
I support the amendment because I didn't want to put a massive
GR-shaped roadblock in the way of any future sensible improvements to
the way we handle debian-private. I _didn't_ support it because I
think old -private messages should be declassified against the wishes
of their authors.
Rather, I support it because trust listmaster (now and in the future)
to not propose anything stupid, to consult properly, to listen
feedback, and to act accordingly. And I (necessarily) trust the
future body of DDs to oversee any such process, and intervene if
necessary.
> Finally, for future reference, it's normal for GRs to include options
> which are the opposite of the original proposal. If you care about the
> subject matter, participate in -vote.
I think this is a very important point.
As a governing member of the project, any DD has a responsibility to
participate. I know that politics is annoying. This whole set of
threads is quite annoying to many people and has caused unfortunate
aggravation and hurt feelings.
But, ultimately, politics is what we do instead of force. In the
wider world it is what we do instead of killing each other. The best
we can hope for is to try to make it as constructive and respectful -
and as just - as we can.
I appreciate that some people feel they have been taken by surprise by
this vote, and are upset. But I think we should avoid suggesting that
the situation is somehow the fault of Nicolas, or of the Secretary, or
of those who seconded the amendment.
Instead we should consider constructive suggestions for how our
processes can improve, so that everyone can feel better included next
time.
Perhaps it would be nice if sufficiently-seconded GR amendments, or
accepted GR amendments, were announced on d-d-a, by the Secretary.
Kurt, how much work would that be for you ?
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
Reply to: