Ian Jackson dijo [Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 04:45:40PM +0100]: > > > > Proponent Is declassification of How might the rules > > > > old posts permissible, for -private be changed > > > > and if so how ? in the future ? > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > Status Quo Difficult/unlikely - New GR needed.[3] > > > 2005 GR procedure. > > > > I would argue that the current status quo follows somewhat closely > > what Iain suggests to document: We have had several threads starting > > in private, then somebody requests the permission from A, B and C to > > quote their parts, and moves the discussion to -project or > > wherever. Yes, a GR is needed because what is documented as the will > > of the project is systematically breached. > > I'm afraid I don't follow. I agree with everything you say, but I > don't understand why you say it now in response to what you quote, > above. > > Do you find my summary (above) inaccurate ? > > It seems to me that what you describe with ABC etc., is "difficult" > and is in accorance with the 2005 GR procedure. I haven't explained > the 2005 GR procedure in detail in my summary, of course.
I am replying to this particular one because, although I found your previous mail a great summary, I tried to illustrate current practice. I made the mistake of addressing only "moving a thread out of private", as we have never "declassified a thread that happened in private" - But restricting to this (much smaller) set, that's what is customary: To ask explicit permission from all of the people I am quoting when sending a public mail referencing a private discussion. But yes, I agree, it's not exactly synonimous, and we should be dealing with the broader topic (declassification of what happened long ago) and not with its easiest corner case.
