On Thu, 01 Dec 2005, Horms wrote:
On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 07:09:25AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
if there *really* are some DDs who volunteer to spend their time
on old postings it is fine for me but because I think there are
much more valuable tasks to do for the benefit of Debian I just
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Debian Project Secretary:
In accordance with principles of openness and transparency, Debian
will seek to declassify and publish posts of historical or ongoing
significance made to the Debian Private Mailing List.
This
On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 12:36:26AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005, Horms wrote:
On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 07:09:25AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
if there *really* are some DDs who volunteer to spend their time
on old postings it is fine for me but because I think there are
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If I read the constitution correctly, you cannot decide such a thing
by GR.
Could you give us your reasoning why this isn't Issuing, superseding
and withdrawing nontechnical policy documents and statements? In my
opinion mailing list usage rules are
* Kalle Kivimaa:
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If I read the constitution correctly, you cannot decide such a thing
by GR.
Could you give us your reasoning why this isn't Issuing, superseding
and withdrawing nontechnical policy documents and statements?
It's not the mailing list
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 04:04:31PM -0600, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
Text: The actual text of the GR is:
In accordance with principles of openness and transparency, Debian
will seek to declassify and publish posts of historical or ongoing
significance made to the Debian
Julian Gilbey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I see a glaring contradiction here: on the one hand, the opening
paragraph talks about publishing selected posts: those with historical
or ongoing significance, but the rest of the GR talks about
declassifying *all* emails with stated exceptions. [...]
I don't
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's not the mailing list policy part, it's the mandated delegation by
the DPL. I suppose a GR can create a declassification team, but a GR
cannot force the DPL to create one by delegation.
Well, a GR cannot force anybody to do anything, due to 2.1.1
I like the proposed GR by Anthony Towns. I don't think it is against our
constitution, and I don't see how it can be breaking any trust, since
the authors and other affected people can prevent publication.
To make my support more concrete: I expect this GR gets passed, so I
hereby declare my
Hi,
Rationale:
I have been thinking about the kinds of reasons for not
wanting to have a post to -private published. I came up with two
major (reasonable) scenarios:
a) The post contained sensitive material.
In this case, if a reasonable case has been made for the
Hello,
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Here is a diff from AJ's proposal. I am now formally seeking
seconds for this modified proposal, which has explicit guidelines for
the most common case for not wantng the posts to be published.
Seconded.
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 16:35:02 +0200, Lars Wirzenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I like the proposed GR by Anthony Towns. I don't think it is against
our constitution, and I don't see how it can be breaking any trust,
since the authors and other affected people can prevent publication.
It
On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 08:32:59AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Here is a diff from AJ's proposal. I am now formally seeking
seconds for this modified proposal, which has explicit guidelines for
the most common case for not wantng the posts to be published.
Seconded.
to, 2005-12-01 kello 09:04 -0600, Manoj Srivastava kirjoitti:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 16:35:02 +0200, Lars Wirzenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I like the proposed GR by Anthony Towns. I don't think it is against
our constitution, and I don't see how it can be breaking any trust,
since the
Wouldn't it be better for people interested in opening the -private
archives to try a pure opt-in approach first? (Which wouldn't require
any change to current policies.)
I can see an argument in favour of publishing a redacted version of the
whole archive (with e.g. phone numbers and addresses
On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 08:54:03AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Debian Project Secretary:
In accordance with principles of openness and transparency, Debian
will seek to declassify and publish posts of historical or ongoing
significance made to the Debian Private Mailing
Hello,
Jérôme Marant wrote:
What is this supposed to mean? If no comments have been made by the
author for eight weeks, messages will be automatically declassified?
It looks like a kind of opt out to me.
True. It may be an idea to have another proposed amendment reversing the
logic, and see
Quoting Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
* The team will automatically declassify and publish posts made to
that list that are three or more years old, with the following
exceptions:
- the author and other individuals quoted in messages being reviewed
will be
On Thursday 01 December 2005 15.32, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
+ - If the author indicates he does not wish to be associated with a
+ post, any identifying information is redacted from that post,
+ and any quotes in subsequent posts, but the rest of the material
+ is published.
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:28:09 +0200, Lars Wirzenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
to, 2005-12-01 kello 09:04 -0600, Manoj Srivastava kirjoitti:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 16:35:02 +0200, Lars Wirzenius [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
I like the proposed GR by Anthony Towns. I don't think it is
against our
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
a) The post contained sensitive material.
In this case, if a reasonable case has been made for the
material being sensitive, and one that the declassification
teams accepted, then the material should be redacted from the
post, and
On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 17:55:37 +0100, Adrian von Bidder [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Thursday 01 December 2005 15.32, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
+ - If the author indicates he does not wish to be associated
with a
+ post, any identifying information is redacted from that post,
+ and any
Here are the urls I didn't find for my other post:
http://vitanuova.loyalty.org/nb/nb.cgi/view/vitanuova/2005/03/13/0
http://www.usenix.org/publications/library/proceedings/sec2000/full_papers/rao/rao.pdf
http://vitanuova.loyalty.org/NewsBruiser-2.6.1/nb.cgi/view/vitanuova/2005/04/06/0
On Thu, 2005-12-01 at 08:32 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hi,
...
- the author and other individuals quoted in messages being reviewed
will be contacted, and allowed between four and eight weeks
to comment;
I think the default behaviour should be to keep the post private,
On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 09:40:52AM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 04:04:31PM -0600, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
In accordance with principles of openness and transparency, Debian
will seek to declassify and publish posts of historical or ongoing
On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 08:21:53AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Erm, as a point of order, as per A.2(4), the discussion period
begins when the resolution was proposed (18th Nov) or the last
amendment was accepted (which hasn't happened; the last amendment
not accepted was formalised on
On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 03:00:42PM +, Moray Allan wrote:
Wouldn't it be better for people interested in opening the -private
archives to try a pure opt-in approach first? (Which wouldn't require
any change to current policies.)
If most of the archive should be published, that's more of a
On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 09:56:48PM +, Dave Holland wrote:
On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 08:30:37AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
I think the default behaviour should be to keep the post private, not to
open it up. That is, if the author and other individuals do not reply,
the message is kept
Em Qui, 2005-12-01 às 08:32 -0600, Manoj Srivastava escreveu:
a) The post contained sensitive material.
In this case, if a reasonable case has been made for the
material being sensitive, and one that the declassification
teams accepted, then the material should be
As dicussion follows, I decided to formalize a proposal for a real
declassification of the content on -private.
As I said before, if we're going to choose which material is made
public, we can't call it declassification.
The main points are:
1) Everything except financial information about
(Followups to -vote)
On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 08:30:37AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
The primary reason for this is that the existing messages were sent to
debian-private with an expectation of privacy.
As Matthew pointed out in [0] this expectation of privacy isn't really
that strong,
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
As Matthew pointed out in [0] this expectation of privacy isn't really
that strong, fundamentally because -private is open to anyone who joins
Debian, and Debian's open to anyone joining it.
[0]
On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 07:06:12PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
As Matthew pointed out in [0] this expectation of privacy isn't really
that strong, fundamentally because -private is open to anyone who joins
Debian, and Debian's open to anyone
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Huh? As far as conduct guidelines go, there's give us a gpg key, do you
know how to use it?, there's Do you agree to uphold the Social
Contract and the DFSG in your Debian work? and there's Do you accept
the Debian Machine Usage Policies? I
On Fri, 2005-12-02 at 12:35 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
(Followups to -vote)
On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 08:30:37AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
The primary reason for this is that the existing messages were sent to
debian-private with an expectation of privacy.
As Matthew pointed out in
On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 08:37:18PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Reordering, trimming.
Please note that I'm not saying this is a persuasive argument against the
proposal. I still haven't made up my mind. I just think that the change
in archive policy is a real, substantive change, and
36 matches
Mail list logo
