-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 03:19:57PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Iain Forbidden. Difficult/unclear.
> New GR would be needed New GR probably needed.
> (or active consent
> from each author).
>  Iain's proposal speaks of "archives". That might mean only things
> which are archives at the time of passing of the GR, but IMO the
> more natural reading is to include all archives even those which
> might come into existence in the future - in which case listmaster
> is prohibited from setting up a declassification system which
> applies prospectively.
Yes, I think it is very clear that Iain's proposal requires a new GR if any
past or future posts are to be declassified without explicit consent from the
authors. Does anyone else think this is not clear, or open for
misinterpretation? If so, please propose alternative wording that would be
more clear. I think this option will win (it has my vote, too), so I don't
want it to be unclear.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----