Hi, I will not comment on the process, just on this proposal: (comments inline, real reply below)
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 04:47:16PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Formal proposal for amendment to Gunnar's GR: delete all, and replace
> with:
>
> Title: Acknowledge difficulty of declassifying debian-private
so the title is changed to "we ack it's difficult".
>
> 1. The Debian Project regrets the non-implementation of the 2005
> General Resolution titled "Declassification of debian-private list
> archives". That General Resolution is hereby repealed.
"dict repeal" tells me this means that GR is made invalid, annulled,
ceases to be affective.
> 2. In case volunteers should come forward: Permission remains for the
> list archives (of any messages, whether posted before or after
> this resolution) to be declassified, provided that the
> declassification process is at least as respecting of the privacy
> of posters to debian-private as the process set out in the 2005
> General Resolution.
and *boom*, this contracts §1 of this proposal (though matches the
title).
> 3. Furthermore, the Debian listmasters remain empowered (subject to
> the usual consultation processes within the Debian project) to
> revise the rules governing the privacy and declassification of
> messages to -private. This includes making measures to make
> declassification more widely applicable, or easier to automate.
>
> 4. But, any weakening of the privacy expectations must not be
> retrospective: changes should apply only to messages posted after
> the rule change has come into force.
>
> 5. In particular, we reaffirm this rule: no part of a posting made to
> -private, which explicitly states that it should not be
> declassified, may be published (without its author's explicit
> consent). This rule may be changed by the listmasters (para.3,
> above), but only for future messages (para.4, above), and only
> following consultation, and only with ample notice.
(off topic to the main point of my reply, but still a question I have: can
one also retroactively say "please don't publish any posts from me ever"?)
> 5. Participants are reminded to use -private only when necessary.
I like this reminder, in general! :)
So, my concern with this proposal: it's something else than Gunnar's
original proposal, which is "revert the GR from 2005, stop trying to
classify -private". So I would like Gunnar's proposal to stay on the
table, as it is.
The above proposal from Ian I find confusing as it is unclear, as I see
it, it says "let's stop this unless maybe someone wants to", which would
result in noone knowing what's going on with publification of -private.
Obviously I'm fine with being it a seperate option on the ballot, even
though I neither second nor support it ;-)
--
cheers,
Holger
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
