[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Proposed GR: State exception for security bugs in Social Contract clause 3


On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 03:11:46AM +0000, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> Here's an example of possible unintended consequences:
> Currently we enumerate no specifics about exceptions to when things
> should be public.  Once we have a foundational list of acceptable
> reasons to not be public (security would be the only one), then it's
> easy to infer that's the complete list.
> Would this GR prohibit the tech ctte practice of private deliberations
> about recommendations for new members?  I think it might.
> I've worked in private with other DDs to resolve disputes within the
> project.  Often a quiet conversation out of the public glare can make
> solutions possible that wouldn't happen if all discussion was public.
> Does this GR prohibit that?  Maybe.

Thank you for your e-mail -- I now understand your objection.

All the other wording in clause 3 is about bug reports against the
Debian system.  The examples that you give are about unresolved issues
in the Debian project -- disputes between people, rather than problems
in source and binary packages.  I find the line between the Debian
system and the Debian project to be fairly sharp.  I'd be interested to
hear if you disagree.

The header of clause 3 ("We will not hide problems") admittedly could
refer to your examples.  Would it help if my GR text were amended to
append "in the Debian system" to the header of the clause?

Sean Whitton

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: