Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge difficulty of declassifying debian-private
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
I second the following proposed GR:
Am 09.09.2016 um 18:27 schrieb Ian Jackson:
> I have changed my about waiting before making a formal proposal.
>
> I hereby propose the following General Resolution.
>
> Title: Acknowledge difficulty of declassifying debian-private
>
> 1. The Debian Project regrets the non-implementation of the 2005
> General Resolution titled "Declassification of debian-private list
> archives". That General Resolution is hereby repealed.
>
> 2. In case volunteers should come forward: Permission remains for
> the list archives (of any messages, whether posted before or after
> this resolution) to be declassified, provided that the
> declassification process is at least as respecting of the privacy
> of posters to debian-private as the process set out in the 2005
> General Resolution.
>
> 3. Furthermore, the Debian listmasters remain empowered (subject
> to the usual consultation processes within the Debian project) to
> revise the rules governing the privacy and declassification of
> messages to -private. This includes making measures to make
> declassification more widely applicable, or easier to automate.
>
> 4. But, any weakening of the privacy expectations must not be
> retrospective: changes should apply only to messages posted after
> the rule change has come into force.
>
> 5. In particular, we reaffirm this rule: no part of a posting made
> to -private, which explicitly states that it should not be
> declassified, may be published (without its author's explicit
> consent). This rule may be changed by the listmasters (para.3,
> above), but only for future messages (para.4, above), and only
> following consultation, and only with ample notice.
>
> 5. Participants are reminded to use -private only when necessary.
>
> Thanks, Ian.
>
Regards,
Micha
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2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=XKiq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: