Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge difficulty of declassifying debian-private
Bas Wijnen writes ("Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge difficulty of declassifying debian-private"):
> 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.
I think if the proposal were to be amended to not use the word
"archives" it would be clearer.
Perhaps like this:
1. The 2005 General Resolution titled "Declassification of
debian-private list archives" is repealed.
2. There shall be no declassification of
{- any portion of the debian-private archives -}
{+ anything posted to debian-private +},
except in the following circumstances.
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.
Reply to: