Hi, I will not comment on the process, just on this proposal: (comments inline, real reply below) On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 04:47:16PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > Formal proposal for amendment to Gunnar's GR: delete all, and replace > with: > > Title: Acknowledge difficulty of declassifying debian-private so the title is changed to "we ack it's difficult". > > 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 That General Resolution is hereby repealed. "dict repeal" tells me this means that GR is made invalid, annulled, ceases to be affective. > 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. and *boom*, this contracts §1 of this proposal (though matches the title). > 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. (off topic to the main point of my reply, but still a question I have: can one also retroactively say "please don't publish any posts from me ever"?) > 5. Participants are reminded to use -private only when necessary. I like this reminder, in general! :) So, my concern with this proposal: it's something else than Gunnar's original proposal, which is "revert the GR from 2005, stop trying to classify -private". So I would like Gunnar's proposal to stay on the table, as it is. The above proposal from Ian I find confusing as it is unclear, as I see it, it says "let's stop this unless maybe someone wants to", which would result in noone knowing what's going on with publification of -private. Obviously I'm fine with being it a seperate option on the ballot, even though I neither second nor support it ;-) -- cheers, Holger
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature