Bas Wijnen writes ("Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge difficulty of declassifying 
debian-private"):
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 03:19:57PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> >  Iain         Forbidden.                   Difficult/unclear.[2]
> >               New GR would be needed       New GR probably needed.
> >               (or active consent
> >           from each author).
> ...
> > [2] 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.

I think if the proposal were to be amended to not use the word
"archives" it would be clearer.

Perhaps like this:

    1. The 2005 General Resolution titled "Declassification of
       debian-private list archives" is repealed.
    2. There shall be no declassification of
         {- any portion of the debian-private archives -}
         {+ anything posted to debian-private +},
       except in the following circumstances.

Ian.

-- 
Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>   These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

Reply via email to