Re: GR proposal: give up on declassifying debian-private (Re: General Resolution: Declassifying debian-private results)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Dear all,
I hereby support this proposal as an additional option on the ballot
(but not as a replacement).
Regards, Thibaut.
Le 21/09/2016 à 14:53, Ian Jackson a écrit :
> 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.
>
> 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 That General Resolution is hereby repealed.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.
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2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=EnYm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: