Ian Jackson dijo [Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 02:16:15PM +0100]: > Charles Plessy writes ("Re: GR: Declassifying debian-private: second call for > votes"): > > out of context, it is hard to chose between the options that each of you are > > presenting in this GR. > > > > Could you briefly rebut each other's options ? I think that it would help > > a > > lot.
Hi Charles, and thanks for this question. I'm answering to Ian's message, as I mostly agree with him, but there are several points where we have different points of view. First and foremost, let me be clear: I do *not* believe my option is the best. But I stated my preference to have it *available on the ballot* instead of replacing its text altogether, as happened in the August GR. I helped Nicolas draft the original text, and while it is ambiguous, it has a strong virtue over the status quo: It saves us from lying, it cleans our face by saying "we would love to, but we failed". > I support both Option 2 ("Acknowledge difficulty", my proposal) and > Option 3 ("Remain private", Iain's proposal). I firmly oppose > Option 1 ("Repeal previous GR", Gunnar's). > > I think Option 1 is quite bad. I will rank option 1 below the FD (ie > the status quo). I recommend everyone else do so. I voted 312-, that means, I prefer Ian's option, then Iain's, then mine, then FD. I really hope this will be aligned with the rest of the project — but I strongly prefer the gray area where declassification is not-strictly-but-kindof-authorized-or-maybe-not to the listmasters to staying firm by a promise we don't intend on keeping. I do not think that the existence of d-private breaks our SC's promise not to hide our problems, and as many others have stated, I recognize there will always be the possibility of private communication between groups of individuals. So, repealing the 2005 GR basically acknowledges that there might a group of individuals, a strict subset of the DDs, that have a common place to talk to each other (while they try to refrain from doing so whenever possible). > I doubt that listmaster will be pleased to enter this fray. Our > listmasters are sensible people who will not want to act in such a > controversial area, when their authority is doubtful. Let me embrace this half-paragraph. When coming to a vote decision, I *hope* we can all remember the good work done by our listmasters, and stop pretending they will breach the project's trust and confidence, even if they were able to. > So this question will drag on with occasional rumblings, perhaps > for years. The dispute might finally be ended only by a second GR. Second? Fourth, rather. > Please vote Option 1 below Further Discussion, or at least below > both Option 2 and Option 3. That's our main disagreement. I see value in "just" repealing the 2005 GR. I think the reason the August GR failed is because it replaced a "decently good" text with a "better but worse" one — By listing declassification actions, some people felt threatened by the wording of the proposed status-quo, or felt it could threaten privacy in the future given a set of conditions. Not having an imperfect-but-better-than-FD option such as the original propoal, slightly over a majority of DDs voted against the GR. I honestly hope options 2 or 3 win, but would be content if the one I proposed does. > If you feel that benefits of possible improvements to the transparency > of -private are negligible, or that they are outweighed by the risk of > madness on the part of listmaster, or even by the necessary > discussions (arguments) about the shape of such a scheme, then you > should rank 3 ahead of 2. > > For you, then, Option 1 is very bad. If you don't have confidence in > our current and future listmasters, not do do something bad, then > leaving listamster with a wide but disputed authority is precisely the > risk you would want to avoid. Right. As I do trust the people in the project, and I trust listmasters not to snap and start publishing d-private "just because", I don't see this risk as particularly compelling. Greetings,
Description: Digital signature