Hi Don, On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 02:33:34PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote on the debian-private list: > On Tue, 09 Aug 2016, Micha Lenk wrote in response to > > > [... someone writing on debian-private that the upcoming GR was announced > > > in advance on d-d-a (<[email protected]>) so that the > > > recent critics could have been discussed earlier and reflected in the GR > > > before the call for votes]: > > I really appreciate that the upcoming GRs were announced early when there > > was still plenty of time for discussion. But I have to confess that I did > > not anticipate that an upcoming GR advertised as "debian-private list will > > remain private" would turn into something that tries to achieve something > > almost as controversial as the opposite, i.e. a GR now titled > > "Declassifying debian-private". For this reason I did not bother weeks ago > > to check what's going on on the -vote mailing list. My real life simply > > seemed to require more attention at that time. > > > > Things like this can happen. Using the right to vote for "further > > discussion" and talking about it is then the only corrective measure > > available at this stage. Yes, such a timing is unfortunate, and I am sorry > > that this annoys the people who did care during the discussion period. > > But when it comes to policy, announcing the plan to do something, and > > afterwards asking in a GR to do the opposite is a simple way to foster real > > discussion. > > I proposed the amendment on 7/16, it was seconded by multiple DDs, then > accepted by Nicolas, and no one objected for two weeks. > > The amendment is almost exactly the same as the original text, with the > addition of a paragraph which makes it explicit that listmaster@ and/or > the DPL has the authority over list archives. This was the understanding > of Nicolas, and mine as well.
Please, do not take my explanation why I did not engage earlier in the discussion on debian-vote as an offence against your amendment. My perception was based on what has been visible on the surface only. And it's only an explanation, not an excuse. > Finally, for future reference, it's normal for GRs to include options > which are the opposite of the original proposal. If you care about the > subject matter, participate in -vote. Right now we have been called for a vote, not for discussion. But I will try to keep an eye on debian-vote in the future so that this won't happen again to me. > > Maybe this was intended, but hey, then let's discuss this not on > > -private. > > You're being very rude to every DD who participated in the discussion on > -vote, the secretary, and myself by claiming that we intended to mislead > you. Sorry, this was ment to be a joke. I do not believe that you intended to mislead me, so please accept my apologies. > Please quote anything I have written in its entirety elsewhere. Done. Cheers, Micha
