Ian Jackson dijo [Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 05:44:07PM +0100]:
> Gunnar Wolf writes ("Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list"):
> > === BEGIN GR TEXT ===
> >
> > Title: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private.
> >
> > 1. The 2005 General Resolution titled "Declassification of debian-private
> > list archives" is repealed.
> > 2. In keeping with paragraph 3 of the Debian Social Contract, Debian
> > Developers are strongly encouraged to use the debian-private mailing
> > list only for discussions that should not be disclosed.
> >
> > === END GR TEXT ===
>
> Thanks for helping to try to get this sorted out. I'm afraid, though,
> that I have decided not to second your resolution.
That's OK - As I said, I am for your version as well. I want to get
more possibilities that do not imply "further discussion", thanks to
Condorcet we don't step over each other's toes. I hope my version gets
enough seconds — I will anyway endorse yours, and I anticipate to vote
yours over mine. But I would prefer not to withdraw mine, even with
its flaws.
> This is because I have become concerned that different people have
> different views about the status quo, and about the effect of a bare
> repeal of the 2005 GR:
>
> Some say that repealing the 2005 GR means that listmaster can do what
> they want; others say that listmaster can do what they want anyway;
> still others think that such a repeal leaves no-one with any authority
> to declassify.
This is the most major flaw, IMO.
> If this bare repeal were to be the winning option in the GR, we would
> then be left in a situation where the legitimacy of various possible
> future courses of action by listmaster would be unclear or disputed.
Right. It can lead to an unwanted situation. Still, a situation I
think is extremely unlikely to happen.
> Thirdly, I want to explicitly grant listmaster the authority to make
> *prospective* changes to -private - ie, changes to the privacy status
> of future messages. Various proposals have been suggested. I don't
> want those kind of proposals to seem blocked by a GR, or to need
> approval by a GR, or to end up being established by a GR and thereby
> cast in stone.
>
> Accordingly, even though I voted this text above FD in the last round
> of voting, I think I would now rank it below FD. Seconding it doesn't
> seem appropriate.
Thanks for your proper input and thought into the process!
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature