Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge difficulty of declassifying debian-private
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 03:19:57PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Iain Forbidden. Difficult/unclear.[2]
> New GR would be needed New GR probably needed.
> (or active consent
> from each author).
...
> [2] Iain's proposal speaks of "archives". That might mean only things
> which are archives at the time of passing of the GR, but IMO the
> more natural reading is to include all archives even those which
> might come into existence in the future - in which case listmaster
> is prohibited from setting up a declassification system which
> applies prospectively.
Yes, I think it is very clear that Iain's proposal requires a new GR if any
past or future posts are to be declassified without explicit consent from the
authors. Does anyone else think this is not clear, or open for
misinterpretation? If so, please propose alternative wording that would be
more clear. I think this option will win (it has my vote, too), so I don't
want it to be unclear.
Thanks,
Bas
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1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=pRGz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: