Anthony Towns wrote:
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
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 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, 24 Nov 2005 11:46:55 +1000, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
said:
On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 05:10:11PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
b) I do not want to be associated with the post in question
In other words, if this showed up in google it may hurt my future
job prospects post
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 16:55:09 +1000, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
said:
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 08:15:21PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Does Author A's mail get outed anyway as part of author B's
response? In other wrods, shall the declassification committee
redact quotes in mails
On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 05:10:11PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
b) I do not want to be associated with the post in question
In other words, if this showed up in google it may hurt my
future job prospects post ;-). In this case, the post can be
published, just every
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 15:38:54 +1000, Anthony Towns
aj@azure.humbug.org.au said:
So, the way I would think it'd work is:
1) team selects one or two months worth of -private posts to
declassify
2) team goes through the posts, marking any that shouldn't be
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 08:15:21PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Does Author A's mail get outed anyway as part of author B's
response? In other wrods, shall the declassification committee
redact quotes in mails the primary author has said is OK to the
publish, but in the scenario
On Tuesday 15 November 2005 03.08, Anthony Towns wrote:
[...]
And beyond that, there really are a lot of good ideas stuck in the
-private archives that it'd be nice to be able to refer to properly.
This seems to be the only reason to me - the other stated reasons can be
paraphrased as 'because
Op za, 19-11-2005 te 21:22 +0100, schreef Eduard Bloch:
And I cannot see much value that outside world would get from having
read access to -private but a much more serious problem with
practically uncontrolled disclosure of information that was guaranteed to
be not for public use until the
#include hallo.h
* Anthony Towns [Tue, Nov 15 2005, 12:08:15PM]:
Hello world,
One of the issues Debian often stands for is transparency and openness
-- indeed, the openness of our bug tracking system is codified in the
Social Contract's statement We will not hide problems. However, one
On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 04:04:43AM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
I'm not really seeing how much more straightforward that makes it anyway?
Currently, the team will have to select posts, and then for each of
them, contact the author and wait between 4 and 8 weeks. There may be
a few posts
Em Ter, 2005-11-15 às 12:08 +1000, Anthony Towns escreveu:
I think the easiest way to do that is to adopt an approach similar to that
of governments that deal with classified documents; that is by setting a
specific time after which -private posts will be required to be considered
for
* Anthony Towns [Wed, 16 Nov 2005 10:03:39 +1000]:
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 01:10:37PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
If, on the other hand (but this may be better the scope of another GR?
I'm not sure, just mention if you think it is), this proposal is
accompanied by a change in
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 14:00:57 -0500, Clint Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
+ comment; and requests by the authors of the post shall be
+ honoured.
If you're going to respect authors' wishes, how would that differ
substantially from the current situation?
The scenarios and proposals,
Op ma, 14-11-2005 te 23:24 -0600, schreef Manoj Srivastava:
##
In accordance with principles of openness and transparency,
Debian will seek to declassify and publish posts of historical or
ongoing significance made to
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 09:52:02AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Perhaps a sensible compromise between your position and Anthony's could
be to propose that requests of authors be honoured unless a compelling
reason to the contrary is presented and explained, yada yada. But I'm
not going to
Hi Manoj!
You wrote:
Here is my proposed change, that would make the process opt-in
by the actual authors, and still give a hearing to any others who may
be affected. I think this process allows people who may have posted
only under the protection of the privacy umbrella, while
Op di, 15-11-2005 te 02:05 -0800, schreef Steve Langasek:
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 09:52:02AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Perhaps a sensible compromise between your position and Anthony's could
be to propose that requests of authors be honoured unless a compelling
reason to the contrary is
* John Lightsey [Tue, 15 Nov 2005 00:40:31 -0600]:
For a policy going forward I would have no objections to sharing
messages which are not explicitly affirmed as private.
I am concerned about this. As the proposal currently stands, to
declassify mails sent after the GR is passed, the same
* Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au [051115 03:12]:
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.
[...]
* The team will automatically declassify
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 12:40:31AM -0600, John Lightsey wrote:
I would be against revealing messages written by or
containing excerpts written by former DDs who have died or disappeared.
I think that's backwards; it seems like it'd make /more/ sense to publish
messages from DDs who've passed
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 01:10:37PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
If, on the other hand (but this may be better the scope of another GR?
I'm not sure, just mention if you think it is), this proposal is
accompanied by a change in -privacy policy from now on, namely posts
will be
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 07:53:28PM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
* Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au [051115 03:12]:
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
On Wed, 2005-11-16 at 10:37 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 12:40:31AM -0600, John Lightsey wrote:
I would be against revealing messages written by or
containing excerpts written by former DDs who have died or disappeared.
I think that's backwards; it seems like it'd
Hello world,
One of the issues Debian often stands for is transparency and openness
-- indeed, the openness of our bug tracking system is codified in the
Social Contract's statement We will not hide problems. However, one
particular area of significance within the project is not open at all:
the
Hi,
I have one comment on this: when the posts were made, they
were made under the mantilla of a promise of privacy; I think it is
wrong to retroactively change the rules without asking the authors
for permission to publish.
So, change the redaction rules to always listen to
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005, Anthony Towns wrote:
Thus, I propose that the Debian project resolve that:
---
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.
On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 08:38:09PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I have one comment on this: when the posts were made, they
were made under the mantilla of a promise of privacy; I think it is
wrong to retroactively change the rules without asking the authors
for permission to
On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 07:01:16PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
I would suggest that declassification of posts affected by a GR be put
on hold if a proposal is made for a GR while the GR process takes
place [since the absolute minimum time that a GR can take is 2 weeks.]
4.2.2.1 does cover
Anthony Towns wrote:
Comments, suggestions and seconds appreciated.
I'm very happy to second this proposal, since it saves me the bother of
finishing the rough draft of the same thing I've been sitting on for a
year, and is much more thought out to boot. Clearly an idea whose time
has come. :-)
Hi,
Here is my proposed change, that would make the process opt-in
by the actual authors, and still give a hearing to any others who may
be affected. I think this process allows people who may have posted
only under the protection of the privacy umbrella, while still
allowing the
On Mon, 2005-11-14 at 23:24 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hi,
Here is my proposed change, that would make the process opt-in
by the actual authors, and still give a hearing to any others who may
be affected. I think this process allows people who may have posted
only under the
33 matches
Mail list logo
