Ian Jackson dijo [Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 05:44:07PM +0100]:
> Gunnar Wolf writes ("Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification
> of the debian-private mailing list"):
> > === BEGIN GR TEXT ===
> >
> > Title: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private.
> >
> > 1. The 2005 General Resolution titled "Declassification of debian-private
> > list archives" is repealed.
> > 2. In keeping with paragraph 3 of the Debian Social Contract, Debian
> > Developers are strongly encouraged to use the debian-private mailing
> > list only for discussions that should not be disclosed.
> >
> > === END GR TEXT ===
>
> Thanks for helping to try to get this sorted out. I'm afraid, though,
> that I have decided not to second your resolution.That's OK - As I said, I am for your version as well. I want to get more possibilities that do not imply "further discussion", thanks to Condorcet we don't step over each other's toes. I hope my version gets enough seconds — I will anyway endorse yours, and I anticipate to vote yours over mine. But I would prefer not to withdraw mine, even with its flaws. > This is because I have become concerned that different people have > different views about the status quo, and about the effect of a bare > repeal of the 2005 GR: > > Some say that repealing the 2005 GR means that listmaster can do what > they want; others say that listmaster can do what they want anyway; > still others think that such a repeal leaves no-one with any authority > to declassify. This is the most major flaw, IMO. > If this bare repeal were to be the winning option in the GR, we would > then be left in a situation where the legitimacy of various possible > future courses of action by listmaster would be unclear or disputed. Right. It can lead to an unwanted situation. Still, a situation I think is extremely unlikely to happen. > Thirdly, I want to explicitly grant listmaster the authority to make > *prospective* changes to -private - ie, changes to the privacy status > of future messages. Various proposals have been suggested. I don't > want those kind of proposals to seem blocked by a GR, or to need > approval by a GR, or to end up being established by a GR and thereby > cast in stone. > > Accordingly, even though I voted this text above FD in the last round > of voting, I think I would now rank it below FD. Seconding it doesn't > seem appropriate. Thanks for your proper input and thought into the process!
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
