Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 03:27:19PM +0000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> One of the benefits of eventually publishing all discussions
You are not suggesting that we should publish posts where their author
explicitly says they should never be declassified, right? So "publishing all
discussions" will never happen.
> is being able to prove that you *didn't* say things
And so nobody can prove this. And even if all of -private was declassified,
then it would still be impossible to prove that you didn't say it in a personal
email to some people, or on the phone, or ...
> When I joined Debian I endorsed the social contract [0] which said
> "we won't hide problems". I think folks are renegging on that ideal,
> but even if that's what the majority decides, I don't think it absolves
> me from my commitment.
I like your idealism; I'm an idealist myself and that's one reason I like
Debian. But I disagree that this clause implies I should not have privacy. I
should not use privacy to pretend Debian is better than it really is, sure.
But as a human, and feeling a bond with my fellow DDs, I want to be able to
have private conversations. I do not see how that is "hiding problems".
Perhaps I hide my personal problems if I discuss them with my friends (on
- -private), but to me the social contract applies to my Debian work, not my
personal life.
> So if the proposal that attempts to deauthorise
> people from releasing their own posts to the public gets on a ballot,
I haven't seen such a proposal, and I cannot imagine that it would win. Well,
unless you are talking about your posts quoting others who don't consent to
their words being released.
> I would prefer some sort of middle ground that has some consideration for
> people's desire for secrecy; but I can't see that happening at this point.
I'm not sure what sort of thing you are referring to, but doesn't one of the
current proposals do what you want? If not, please write your own proposal!
Thanks,
Bas
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1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=Gjam
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: