Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge difficulty of declassifying debian-private
Ian Jackson dijo [Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 04:45:40PM +0100]:
> > > > Proponent Is declassification of How might the rules
> > > > old posts permissible, for -private be changed
> > > > and if so how ? in the future ?
> > > >
> > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Status Quo Difficult/unlikely - New GR needed.[3]
> > > 2005 GR procedure.
> >
> > I would argue that the current status quo follows somewhat closely
> > what Iain suggests to document: We have had several threads starting
> > in private, then somebody requests the permission from A, B and C to
> > quote their parts, and moves the discussion to -project or
> > wherever. Yes, a GR is needed because what is documented as the will
> > of the project is systematically breached.
>
> I'm afraid I don't follow. I agree with everything you say, but I
> don't understand why you say it now in response to what you quote,
> above.
>
> Do you find my summary (above) inaccurate ?
>
> It seems to me that what you describe with ABC etc., is "difficult"
> and is in accorance with the 2005 GR procedure. I haven't explained
> the 2005 GR procedure in detail in my summary, of course.
I am replying to this particular one because, although I found your
previous mail a great summary, I tried to illustrate current
practice. I made the mistake of addressing only "moving a thread out
of private", as we have never "declassified a thread that happened in
private" - But restricting to this (much smaller) set, that's what is
customary: To ask explicit permission from all of the people I am
quoting when sending a public mail referencing a private discussion.
But yes, I agree, it's not exactly synonimous, and we should be
dealing with the broader topic (declassification of what happened long
ago) and not with its easiest corner case.
Reply to: