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 That General Resolution is hereby repealed.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