Am 13. Januar 2017 06:17:48 GMT+08:00 schrieb Philip Hands <[email protected]>: >Scott Kitterman <[email protected]> writes: > >> On Thursday, January 12, 2017 02:26:59 PM Sean Whitton wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 03:11:46AM +0000, Scott Kitterman wrote: >>> > Here's an example of possible unintended consequences: >>> > >>> > Currently we enumerate no specifics about exceptions to when >things >>> > should be public. Once we have a foundational list of acceptable >>> > reasons to not be public (security would be the only one), then >it's >>> > easy to infer that's the complete list. >>> > >>> > Would this GR prohibit the tech ctte practice of private >deliberations >>> > about recommendations for new members? I think it might. >>> > >>> > I've worked in private with other DDs to resolve disputes within >the >>> > project. Often a quiet conversation out of the public glare can >make >>> > solutions possible that wouldn't happen if all discussion was >public. >>> > Does this GR prohibit that? Maybe. >>> >>> Thank you for your e-mail -- I now understand your objection. >>> >>> All the other wording in clause 3 is about bug reports against the >>> Debian system. The examples that you give are about unresolved >issues >>> in the Debian project -- disputes between people, rather than >problems >>> in source and binary packages. I find the line between the Debian >>> system and the Debian project to be fairly sharp. I'd be interested >to >>> hear if you disagree. >>> >>> The header of clause 3 ("We will not hide problems") admittedly >could >>> refer to your examples. Would it help if my GR text were amended to >>> append "in the Debian system" to the header of the clause? >> >> That then has the opposite problem. It clearly narrows the notion of >not >> hiding problems and I don't think that's good either. >> >> I'm still at don't monkey with foundational documents to solve >> non-problems. > >Quite. > >I'm yet to be convinced that there exists anyone that would be upset by >the fact that our security team might abide by embargoes in supposed >defiance of 'not hide problems'. I am also not convinced that if there >does exist such a person, and they are capable of becoming upset enough >about it to be driven away from Debian, that that would be a great >loss. > >Cheers, Phil.
Seems that topic has been previously discussed already: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=129604 (just came across that bug by purechange yesterday) -- Tobias Frost GPG fingerprint: 13C9 04F0 CE08 5E7C 3630 7985 DECF 849A A635 7FB7
