[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: GR proposal: give up on declassifying debian-private (Re: General Resolution: Declassifying debian-private results)



On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 13:53:28 +0100
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

> I think it would be best to seek further sponsors for my proposal.
> If you like my version, or would like to see it on the ballot, please
> second it.

Seconded

> Here it is:
> 
> > Formal proposal for amendment to Gunnar's GR: delete all, and replace
> > with:
> > 
> >  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  That General Resolution is hereby repealed.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.
> > 
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Version: GnuPG v1
> > 
> > iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJX4Vn5AAoJEOPjOSNItQ05vFgH/29lNK5S6bUo1mXZhau74UP5
> > 8PMCDwEUa7rcYuKefJH4wxvLxQM5FBL8kg72Y4gvr7unqE/sA5HIDsV0pC3EbLZN
> > c2dwmSTrJcxcpST5GI5nfDrUoiP3Y4RMmeLOR97ugHYXxofzakn2XzWMFeoZfChC
> > gu/gb09n6wNkPTvO5YBw2Ve/Soud5TUD1RehK+E2z1d2hvesekRG3k9cWVuxxoj7
> > ljfBpTuNpsnWzbItyhequ+U57tsyS92FWGgANzpQmO+GhhZpZlFImKlAJN4Vi0Dl
> > jVrDD24EKjKOxIIMxU7448ciITXeTsnfTgylfX9zrzAKfwa7gWPnbWrGNF0E9us=
> > =/vLH
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----  
> 
> Thanks,
> 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.
> 

Attachment: pgpV0m5edCvWd.pgp
Description: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP


Reply to: