Re: GR Proposal 2: Declassification of -private

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 14:00:08 +1000, Anthony Towns  
said: 

> On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 01:06:46PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
>> Daniel Ruoso wrote:
>> > I change my position as it seems that's needed to take it to the
>> > vote.  I consider the whole proposal more important than the
>> > differences between them
>> Me too, but I suspect Manoj will be happy with Aj's new proposal,
>> so I will limit myself to seconding it.

> Hey Joey, your second appears not to have been counted, possibly
> because you didn't quote the text of the GR. Manoj? You guys want to
> sort this out?

Well, I read that mail as a response to  Daniel Ruoso, and a
 indication that he would second it, rather than a formal second of
 the proposal. I also see this as moot: the proposal met the required
 seconds, and a call for vote has gone out; so I am not sure it
 matters a whole lot in the scheme of things if there were a few more
 seconds.

manoj
-- 
We don't understand the software, and sometimes we don't understand
the hardware, but we can *___see* the blinking lights!
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GR Proposal 2: Declassification of -private

[Anthony Towns]

On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 01:06:46PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> > I change my position as it seems that's needed to take it to the vote.
> > I consider the whole proposal more important than the differences
> > between them
> Me too, but I suspect Manoj will be happy with Aj's new proposal, so I
> will limit myself to seconding it.

Hey Joey, your second appears not to have been counted, possibly
because you didn't quote the text of the GR. Manoj? You guys want to
sort this out?

Cheers,
aj



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: GR Proposal 2: Declassification of -private

[Ian Jackson]

Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: GR Proposal 2: Declassification of -private"):
> Please feel free to author an amendment that states that the
>  declassification only happens when the author(s)  of the email have
>  explicitly granted permission, then, if you feel so strongly about
>  it. It would round out the options presented to the voters nicely.

In the interests of clear wording and good drafting, it is sometimes
helpful for those of us who enjoy writing these kind of things to help
those who disagree with us.

Or, to put it another way, here is a suggested amendment:

 Delete

- requests by the author of a post for that post not to be published
  will be honoured;

 and insert after `the author ... eight weeks to comment;'

- no messages will be published without the active consent of its
  authors; in messages which are published, quotations from
  authors who do not actively consent will be summarised or
  deleted (at the discretion of the declassification volunteers)
  and the authors' identity erased.

For the avoidance of any doubt, I strongly disagree with this
amendment and much prefer the original text.

Ian.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GR Proposal 2: Declassification of -private

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 18:00:27 +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> Kalle Kivimaa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> The proposal guarantees that if an author wishes his/her post(s) to
>> remain confidential, they will do so. The proposal has a specific
>> procedure that must be followed to publish any -private message,
>> either past or future, and the author of the message has a veto for
>> all of his/her posts.

> A veto is not a guarantee that an author can keep a post
> confidential.  There are all sorts of reasons why the author may not
> respond in time, one of which you mentioned (author no longer on
> email).

> The proposal should NOT apply to past posts in its current form.

Please feel free to author an amendment that states that the
 declassification only happens when the author(s)  of the email have
 explicitly granted permission, then, if you feel so strongly about
 it. It would round out the options presented to the voters nicely.

manoj
-- 
Walk softly and carry a BFG-9000.
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GR Proposal 2: Declassification of -private

[MJ Ray]

Margarita Manterola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> There is important historical information hidden in the debian-private
> archives.  Like the reasons why the social contract and the DFSG are
> the way they are.

I believe that is a small proportion of the messages and does not
justify the proposed disclosure by default. It would be interesting
to get those messages published, but is the existing process of
contacting authors really the blockage?

[...]
> I understand that the idea of this GR is not to reveal confidential
> information that people are not willing to disclose, but to reveal the
> information that might help non-DDs understand the history of the
> project.

Maybe it's not the inspiration, but as a side effect, it publishes
confidential information without the senders' permission. It needs
amending.

-- 
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GR Proposal 2: Declassification of -private

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Let's compare that with some license: GPL expects a binary software
> releaser to keep the source available for three years. This is generaly
> accepted as a period which is long enough to make the source not
> interesting for anyone. Should we force that to be changed to 4 weeks
> (rather than 36 months) in GPLv3? This would also apply to the lots of
> software saying "GPL v2 or any later version" in the source because it
> was the default header template.
> Great deal, isn't?

I can't make any sense in this comparison.  The fact that some changes
are bad does not mean that all changes are bad.

Thomas


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GR Proposal 2: Declassification of -private

[Graham Wilson]

On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 04:06:22PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Margarita Manterola wrote:
> > Also, people in the NM queue that have to agree to the Social Contract
> > and the DFSG, might be interested in knowing why these documents have
> > the shape they have before actually agreeing to them.
> 
> Once they leave NM-mode and enter DD-mode they can read the archive
> directly on master.

Of course, they've already agreed to them at that point, so the
historical context might be less useful to them then.

-- 
gram


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GR Proposal 2: Declassification of -private

[Martin Schulze]

Margarita Manterola wrote:
> Also, people in the NM queue that have to agree to the Social Contract
> and the DFSG, might be interested in knowing why these documents have
> the shape they have before actually agreeing to them.

Once they leave NM-mode and enter DD-mode they can read the archive
directly on master.

Regards,

Joey

-- 
In the beginning was the word, and the word was content-type: text/plain


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GR Proposal 2: Declassification of -private

[Margarita Manterola]

On 11/21/05, Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I do not see any reason for this GR since I cannot remember any serious
> request to make -private mails public where this action would really
> have been beneficial for the outside world.

The reasons were stated in one of the first emails of this thread. 
There is important historical information hidden in the debian-private
archives.  Like the reasons why the social contract and the DFSG are
the way they are.

Many people that might not be interested in becoming Debian Developers
(like someone who's studying Debian academically) might be REALLY
interested in knowing the roots that made Debian become what it is.

Also, people in the NM queue that have to agree to the Social Contract
and the DFSG, might be interested in knowing why these documents have
the shape they have before actually agreeing to them.

I understand that the idea of this GR is not to reveal confidential
information that people are not willing to disclose, but to reveal the
information that might help non-DDs understand the history of the
project.

--
Besos,
Marga

Re: GR Proposal 2: Declassification of -private

[Eduard Bloch]

#include 
* Thomas Bushnell BSG [Mon, Nov 21 2005, 10:25:26PM]:

> > I'm amazed anyone considers otherwise. It's unethical to publish
> > things that debian promised to keep private. I think it also leaves
> > us wide open to accusations of infringing copyright.
> 
> I think you are wrong on both counts.  You are certainly free to vote

Ethical? LOL.

Let's compare that with some license: GPL expects a binary software
releaser to keep the source available for three years. This is generaly
accepted as a period which is long enough to make the source not
interesting for anyone. Should we force that to be changed to 4 weeks
(rather than 36 months) in GPLv3? This would also apply to the lots of
software saying "GPL v2 or any later version" in the source because it
was the default header template.
Great deal, isn't?

> as you wish, of course, but your amazement doesn't carry much weight.
> Rather than be amazed, maybe you should look to see what might be
> right in what is being said by other people with a different view.

Sure. And this needs enough noise to make another case of "editorial
changes amendment" less possible.

Eduard.
-- 
Ambassador Vir Cotto: Prophecy is a guess that comes true. When it doesn't,
it's a metaphor.
 -- Quotes from Babylon 5 --


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GR Proposal 2: Declassification of -private

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>> [...] And if this is a
>> problem, then we have the amendment which will enable the procedure
>> only for future posts.
>
> I'm amazed anyone considers otherwise. It's unethical to publish
> things that debian promised to keep private. I think it also leaves
> us wide open to accusations of infringing copyright.

I think you are wrong on both counts.  You are certainly free to vote
as you wish, of course, but your amazement doesn't carry much weight.
Rather than be amazed, maybe you should look to see what might be
right in what is being said by other people with a different view.

Thomas


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GR Proposal 2: Declassification of -private

[Ean Schuessler]

On Monday 21 November 2005 12:00 pm, MJ Ray wrote:
> I'm amazed anyone considers otherwise. It's unethical to publish
> things that debian promised to keep private. I think it also leaves
> us wide open to accusations of infringing copyright.

In the final analysis, does debian-private "own" any of the posts it contains 
in the sense that it can block the original authors (quoted or otherwise) 
from releasing the information? There is no contractual obligation (that I'm 
aware of) that one must keep debian-private secret at least in the sense of a 
true non-disclosure agreement.

Should we just create a system where Debian-Private authors can authorize 
messages (3 years or otherwise) and they are automatically made publicly 
available. Is there a legal barrier to creating such a system, GR or no GR?

-- 
Ean Schuessler, CTO
Brainfood, Inc.
http://www.brainfood.com


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GR Proposal 2: Declassification of -private

[MJ Ray]

Kalle Kivimaa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The proposal guarantees that if an author wishes his/her post(s) to
> remain confidential, they will do so. The proposal has a specific
> procedure that must be followed to publish any -private message,
> either past or future, and the author of the message has a veto for
> all of his/her posts.

A veto is not a guarantee that an author can keep a post confidential.
There are all sorts of reasons why the author may not respond in time,
one of which you mentioned (author no longer on email).

The proposal should NOT apply to past posts in its current form.

Further, the proposal does not say where those announcements will
happen. Please can it be amended to require a devel-announce post or
similar?

> [...] And if this is a
> problem, then we have the amendment which will enable the procedure
> only for future posts.

I'm amazed anyone considers otherwise. It's unethical to publish
things that debian promised to keep private. I think it also leaves
us wide open to accusations of infringing copyright.

-- 
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GR Proposal 2: Declassification of -private

[Kalle Kivimaa]

Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I fully agree with Monroe - WHEN an author writes to
> -private, s/he declares his wishes to expect this information to be kept
> confidential and in some countries s/he may have even guaranteed rights.

The proposal guarantees that if an author wishes his/her post(s) to
remain confidential, they will do so. The proposal has a specific
procedure that must be followed to publish any -private message,
either past or future, and the author of the message has a veto for
all of his/her posts.

I don't really see a confidentiality breach problem for anything else
except for those authors who have stopped following Debian related
matters and are no longer reachable via email. And if this is a
problem, then we have the amendment which will enable the procedure
only for future posts.

-- 
* Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology (T.P)  *
*   PGP public key available @ http://www.iki.fi/killer   *


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GR Proposal 2: Declassification of -private

[Eduard Bloch]

#include 
* Matthew Garrett [Fri, Nov 18 2005, 04:13:35PM]:
> Monroe Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > I don't think we have any moral right and barely any legal standing
> > to publish messages which were made to a private mailing list under
> > the current regime. The veto option doesn't cover this if we have
> > lost contact with the author(s). Please add:
> 
> Any post to -private is made with the knowledge that anyone in the world
> could, at some later point, become a developer and read that email. I
> don't see how this would actually change the situation.

Sure. The same way the one can just become a president and use nukes to
destroy the world. 

I fully agree with Monroe - WHEN an author writes to
-private, s/he declares his wishes to expect this information to be kept
confidential and in some countries s/he may have even guaranteed rights.

Instead, most people in this discussion think it is okay to override
this right because of ... what actually? Either nothing or not being
accessible for few weeks?

I do not see any reason for this GR since I cannot remember any serious
request to make -private mails public where this action would really
have been beneficial for the outside world.

Eduard.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GR Proposal 2: Declassification of -private

[Anthony Towns]

On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 04:09:58PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Thus, I propose that the Debian project resolve that:

So, this has 7 sponsors now, namely:

  Aníbal Monsalve Salazar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  Kalle Kivimaa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  Daniel Ruoso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

which should mean it's introduced now, and ready to be added to
vote.debian.org.

Cheers,
aj


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: GR Proposal 2: Declassification of -private

[Don Armstrong]

On Fri, 18 Nov 2005, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Thus, I propose that the Debian project resolve that:
> 
> ---
> In accordance with principles of openness and transparency, Debian will
> seek to declassify and publish posts of historical or ongoing significance
> made to the Debian Private Mailing List.
> 
> This process will be undertaken under the following constraints:
> 
>   * The Debian Project Leader will delegate one or more volunteers
> to form the "debian-private declassification team".
> 
>   * The team will automatically declassify and publish posts made to
> that list that are three or more years old, with the following
> exceptions:
> 
> - the author and other individuals quoted in messages being reviewed
>   will be contacted, and allowed between four and eight weeks
>   to comment;
> 
> - posts that reveal financial information about individuals or
>   organisations other than Debian, will have that information
>   removed;
> 
> - requests by the author of a post for that post not to be published
>   will be honoured;
> 
> - posts of no historical or other relevance, such as vacation
>   announcements, or posts that have no content after personal
>   information is removed, will not be published, unless the author
>   requests they be published;
> 
> - comments by others who would be affected by the publication of
>   the post will also be taken into account by the declassification
>   team;
> 
> - the list of posts to be declassified will be made available to
>   developers two weeks before publication, so that the decisions
>   of the team may be overruled by the developer body by General
>   Resolution, if necessary -- in the event such a resolution is
>   introduced (ie, proposed and sponsored), the declassification
>   and publication of messages specified by the resolution will be
>   deferred until the resolution has been voted on.
> ---
>
>Don Armstrong (original or Manoj's changes)

In case my original second wasn't applicable to this modified
proposal, I second the above proposal.


Don Armstrong

-- 
Q: What Can a Thoughtful Man Hope for Mankind on Earth, Given the
Experience of the Past Million Years?
A: Nothing.
 -- Bokonon _The Fourteenth Book of Bokonon_ (Vonnegut _Cats Cradle_)

http://www.donarmstrong.com  http://rzlab.ucr.edu


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: GR Proposal 2: Declassification of -private

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 04:09:58PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Thus, I propose that the Debian project resolve that:
> 
> ---
> In accordance with principles of openness and transparency, Debian will
> seek to declassify and publish posts of historical or ongoing significance
> made to the Debian Private Mailing List.
> 
> This process will be undertaken under the following constraints:
> 
>   * The Debian Project Leader will delegate one or more volunteers
> to form the "debian-private declassification team".
> 
>   * The team will automatically declassify and publish posts made to
> that list that are three or more years old, with the following
> exceptions:
> 
> - the author and other individuals quoted in messages being reviewed
>   will be contacted, and allowed between four and eight weeks
>   to comment;
> 
> - posts that reveal financial information about individuals or
>   organisations other than Debian, will have that information
>   removed;
> 
> - requests by the author of a post for that post not to be published
>   will be honoured;
> 
> - posts of no historical or other relevance, such as vacation
>   announcements, or posts that have no content after personal
>   information is removed, will not be published, unless the author
>   requests they be published;
> 
> - comments by others who would be affected by the publication of
>   the post will also be taken into account by the declassification
>   team;
> 
> - the list of posts to be declassified will be made available to
>   developers two weeks before publication, so that the decisions
>   of the team may be overruled by the developer body by General
>   Resolution, if necessary -- in the event such a resolution is
>   introduced (ie, proposed and sponsored), the declassification
>   and publication of messages specified by the resolution will be
>   deferred until the resolution has been voted on.
> ---

I second this proposal.


Kurt



pgpz60S4wFHRg.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: GR Proposal 2: Declassification of -private

[Joey Hess]

Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> I change my position as it seems that's needed to take it to the vote.
> I consider the whole proposal more important than the differences
> between them

Me too, but I suspect Manoj will be happy with Aj's new proposal, so I
will limit myself to seconding it.

-- 
see shy jo


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: GR Proposal 2: Declassification of -private

[Matthew Garrett]

Monroe Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I don't think we have any moral right and barely any legal standing
> to publish messages which were made to a private mailing list under
> the current regime. The veto option doesn't cover this if we have
> lost contact with the author(s). Please add:

Any post to -private is made with the knowledge that anyone in the world
could, at some later point, become a developer and read that email. I
don't see how this would actually change the situation.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
My preferred name is "you"


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GR Proposal 2: Declassification of -private

[Daniel Ruoso]

Em Sex, 2005-11-18 às 16:09 +1000, Anthony Towns escreveu:
> Thus, I propose that the Debian project resolve that:
> 
> ---
> In accordance with principles of openness and transparency, Debian will
> seek to declassify and publish posts of historical or ongoing significance
> made to the Debian Private Mailing List.
> 
> This process will be undertaken under the following constraints:
> 
>   * The Debian Project Leader will delegate one or more volunteers
> to form the "debian-private declassification team".
> 
>   * The team will automatically declassify and publish posts made to
> that list that are three or more years old, with the following
> exceptions:
> 
> - the author and other individuals quoted in messages being reviewed
>   will be contacted, and allowed between four and eight weeks
>   to comment;
> 
> - posts that reveal financial information about individuals or
>   organisations other than Debian, will have that information
>   removed;
> 
> - requests by the author of a post for that post not to be published
>   will be honoured;
> 
> - posts of no historical or other relevance, such as vacation
>   announcements, or posts that have no content after personal
>   information is removed, will not be published, unless the author
>   requests they be published;
> 
> - comments by others who would be affected by the publication of
>   the post will also be taken into account by the declassification
>   team;
> 
> - the list of posts to be declassified will be made available to
>   developers two weeks before publication, so that the decisions
>   of the team may be overruled by the developer body by General
>   Resolution, if necessary -- in the event such a resolution is
>   introduced (ie, proposed and sponsored), the declassification
>   and publication of messages specified by the resolution will be
>   deferred until the resolution has been voted on.
> ---
> The changes since the original:
> 
>- authors have a veto over publication (Manoj's changes)
>- people quoted in messages rather than other recipients should be
>  contacted
>- security problems don't get special treatment; they can be vetoed
>  by the post's author though
>- specific details for overriding the team's decisions by the
>  developers

Ok, Following what I've said in the last post, I second this proposal.

daniel


signature.asc
Description: Esta é uma parte de mensagem	assinada digitalmente

Re: GR Proposal 2: Declassification of -private

[Daniel Ruoso]

Em Sex, 2005-11-18 às 16:09 +1000, Anthony Towns escreveu:
> Seconds so far:
>Don Armstrong (original or Manoj's changes)
>Joey Hess (original only, no comment on Manoj's changes)
>Wouter Verhelst (Manoj's changes, no comment on original)
>Bas Zoetekouw (Manoj's changes, no comment on original)
>Daniel Ruoso (original preferred over Manoj's changes)
> Five's enough to second a proposal, but only if they all second the same
> one :)

I change my position as it seems that's needed to take it to the vote.
I consider the whole proposal more important than the differences
between them, so I extend my second to the original and to manoj's
changes.

And, I think it would be interesting to get the process applied to
future content even if it don't passes for the past content. So...

I propose to include an option on the vote for applying the same rules,
but only to future content.

daniel


signature.asc
Description: Esta é uma parte de mensagem	assinada digitalmente

Re: GR Proposal 2: Declassification of -private

[MJ Ray]

It seems my previous post got lost or ignored. Retrying:

Anthony Towns wrote:
>  * The team will automatically declassify and publish posts made to
>that list that are three or more years old, with the following
>exceptions:

I don't think we have any moral right and barely any legal standing
to publish messages which were made to a private mailing list under
the current regime. The veto option doesn't cover this if we have
lost contact with the author(s). Please add:

- for messages posted before this resolution, the author(s) must
consent to republication. Failing that, a commentary or summary
will be posted in place of the message.

>- the list of posts to be declassified will be made available to
>  developers two weeks before publication [...]

Please replace "made available" with "announced" to indicate the
use of d-d-a and its successors. The declassification team should
not have the option of putting the list in a locked filing cabinet
in an unlit downstairs toilet behind a door signed "beware ...

If these changes were incorporated, I would second it.

-- 
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GR Proposal 2: Declassification of -private

[Wouter Verhelst]

Op vr, 18-11-2005 te 16:09 +1000, schreef Anthony Towns:
> Okay, incorporating Manoj's proposed changes, and some other ideas:
[...]
> ---
> In accordance with principles of openness and transparency, Debian will
> seek to declassify and publish posts of historical or ongoing significance
> made to the Debian Private Mailing List.
> 
> This process will be undertaken under the following constraints:
> 
>   * The Debian Project Leader will delegate one or more volunteers
> to form the "debian-private declassification team".
> 
>   * The team will automatically declassify and publish posts made to
> that list that are three or more years old, with the following
> exceptions:
> 
> - the author and other individuals quoted in messages being reviewed
>   will be contacted, and allowed between four and eight weeks
>   to comment;
> 
> - posts that reveal financial information about individuals or
>   organisations other than Debian, will have that information
>   removed;
> 
> - requests by the author of a post for that post not to be published
>   will be honoured;
> 
> - posts of no historical or other relevance, such as vacation
>   announcements, or posts that have no content after personal
>   information is removed, will not be published, unless the author
>   requests they be published;
> 
> - comments by others who would be affected by the publication of
>   the post will also be taken into account by the declassification
>   team;
> 
> - the list of posts to be declassified will be made available to
>   developers two weeks before publication, so that the decisions
>   of the team may be overruled by the developer body by General
>   Resolution, if necessary -- in the event such a resolution is
>   introduced (ie, proposed and sponsored), the declassification
>   and publication of messages specified by the resolution will be
>   deferred until the resolution has been voted on.
> ---
[...]
> Seconds so far:
> 
>Don Armstrong (original or Manoj's changes)
>Joey Hess (original only, no comment on Manoj's changes)
>Wouter Verhelst (Manoj's changes, no comment on original)
>Bas Zoetekouw (Manoj's changes, no comment on original)
>Daniel Ruoso (original preferred over Manoj's changes)
> 
> Five's enough to second a proposal, but only if they all second the same
> one :)

Assume that fixed for my part. I hereby second this proposal, as it
stands.

-- 
.../ -/ ---/ .--./ / .--/ .-/ .../ -/ ../ -./ --./ / -.--/ ---/ ..-/ .-./ / -/
../ --/ ./ / .--/ ../ -/ / / -../ ./ -.-./ ---/ -../ ../ -./ --./ / --/
-.--/ / .../ ../ --./ -./ .-/ -/ ..-/ .-./ ./ .-.-.-/ / --/ ---/ .-./ .../ ./ /
../ .../ / ---/ ..-/ -/ -../ .-/ -/ ./ -../ / -/ ./ -.-./ / -./ ---/ .-../
---/ --./ -.--/ / .-/ -./ -.--/ .--/ .-/ -.--/ .-.-.-/ / ...-.-/



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: GR Proposal 2: Declassification of -private

[Kalle Kivimaa]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Anthony Towns  writes:

> Okay, incorporating Manoj's proposed changes, and some other ideas:
>
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 12:08:15PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> One of the issues Debian often stands for is transparency and openness
>> -- indeed, the openness of our bug tracking system is codified in the
>> Social Contract's statement "We will not hide problems". However, one
>> particular area of significance within the project is not open at all:
>> the debian-private mailing list.
>> 
>> This list has hosted a number of significant discussions over the years,
>> including most of the discussion inspiring the original statement
>> of Debian's Social Contract and the Debian Free Software Guidelines,
>> the reinvetion of the new-maintainer process, debate on the qmail to
>> exim/postfix transition for Debian mail servers and more. This trend
>> continues today, with the six months just past have averaged around 190
>> posts per month.
>> 
>> Especially given Debian is the focus of academic work (such as Biella
>> Coleman's paper), and has inspired other groups to emulate our commitment
>> to free software and our community (GenToo, Wikipedia, the Open Directory
>> Project and OpenSolaris), we should make our discussions on issues like
>> these and the reasoning behind the solutions we adopt accessible to the
>> rest of humanity.
>> 
>> I think the easiest way to do that is to adopt an approach similar to that
>> of governments that deal with classified documents; that is by setting a
>> specific time after which -private posts will be required to be considered
>> for declassification (ie, publication) and redacting only those posts (or
>> portions of posts) for which there's still a good reason to keep private.
>
> Thus, I propose that the Debian project resolve that:
>
> ---
> In accordance with principles of openness and transparency, Debian will
> seek to declassify and publish posts of historical or ongoing significance
> made to the Debian Private Mailing List.
>
> This process will be undertaken under the following constraints:
>
>   * The Debian Project Leader will delegate one or more volunteers
> to form the "debian-private declassification team".
>
>   * The team will automatically declassify and publish posts made to
> that list that are three or more years old, with the following
> exceptions:
>
> - the author and other individuals quoted in messages being reviewed
>   will be contacted, and allowed between four and eight weeks
>   to comment;
>
> - posts that reveal financial information about individuals or
>   organisations other than Debian, will have that information
>   removed;
>
> - requests by the author of a post for that post not to be published
>   will be honoured;
>
> - posts of no historical or other relevance, such as vacation
>   announcements, or posts that have no content after personal
>   information is removed, will not be published, unless the author
>   requests they be published;
>
> - comments by others who would be affected by the publication of
>   the post will also be taken into account by the declassification
>   team;
>
> - the list of posts to be declassified will be made available to
>   developers two weeks before publication, so that the decisions
>   of the team may be overruled by the developer body by General
>   Resolution, if necessary -- in the event such a resolution is
>   introduced (ie, proposed and sponsored), the declassification
>   and publication of messages specified by the resolution will be
>   deferred until the resolution has been voted on.
> ---
>
>> According to the interweb, classified US government documents relating
>> to national security have to be released after at most ten years (unless
>> there're particular reasons to extend that); the oldest mail in the
>> -private archives turns ten on January 21st next year. I don't want to
>> see Debian be more secretive than the US military industrial complex :)
>> 
>> And beyond that, there really are a lot of good ideas stuck in the
>> -private archives that it'd be nice to be able to refer to properly.
>
> The changes since the original:
>
>- authors have a veto over publication (Manoj's changes)
>- people quoted in messages rather than other recipients should be
>  contacted
>- security problems don't get special treatment; they can be vetoed
>  by the post's author though
>- specific details for overriding the team's decisions by the
>  developers
>
> Seconds so far:
>
>Don Armstrong (original or Manoj's changes)
>Joey Hess (original only, no comment on Manoj's changes)
>Wouter Verhelst (Manoj's changes, no comment on original)
>Bas Zoetekouw (Manoj's changes, no comment on original)
>Daniel Ruoso (original preferred over Manoj's changes)
>
> Five's enough to second a proposal, but only if th

Re: GR Proposal 2: Declassification of -private

[Aníbal Monsalve Salazar]

opers
>
>Seconds so far:
>
>   Don Armstrong (original or Manoj's changes)
>   Joey Hess (original only, no comment on Manoj's changes)
>   Wouter Verhelst (Manoj's changes, no comment on original)
>   Bas Zoetekouw (Manoj's changes, no comment on original)
>   Daniel Ruoso (original preferred over Manoj's changes)
>
>Five's enough to second a proposal, but only if they all second the same
>one :)
>
>>Comments, suggestions and seconds appreciated.

I second this proposal, "GR Proposal 2: Declassification of -private".

>Cheers,
>aj

Aníbal Monsalve Salazar
--
 .''`. Debian GNU/Linux
: :' : Free Operating System
`. `'  http://debian.org/
  `-   http://v7w.com/anibal


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

GR Proposal 2: Declassification of -private

[Anthony Towns]

Okay, incorporating Manoj's proposed changes, and some other ideas:

On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 12:08:15PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> One of the issues Debian often stands for is transparency and openness
> -- indeed, the openness of our bug tracking system is codified in the
> Social Contract's statement "We will not hide problems". However, one
> particular area of significance within the project is not open at all:
> the debian-private mailing list.
> 
> This list has hosted a number of significant discussions over the years,
> including most of the discussion inspiring the original statement
> of Debian's Social Contract and the Debian Free Software Guidelines,
> the reinvetion of the new-maintainer process, debate on the qmail to
> exim/postfix transition for Debian mail servers and more. This trend
> continues today, with the six months just past have averaged around 190
> posts per month.
> 
> Especially given Debian is the focus of academic work (such as Biella
> Coleman's paper), and has inspired other groups to emulate our commitment
> to free software and our community (GenToo, Wikipedia, the Open Directory
> Project and OpenSolaris), we should make our discussions on issues like
> these and the reasoning behind the solutions we adopt accessible to the
> rest of humanity.
> 
> I think the easiest way to do that is to adopt an approach similar to that
> of governments that deal with classified documents; that is by setting a
> specific time after which -private posts will be required to be considered
> for declassification (ie, publication) and redacting only those posts (or
> portions of posts) for which there's still a good reason to keep private.

Thus, I propose that the Debian project resolve that:

---
In accordance with principles of openness and transparency, Debian will
seek to declassify and publish posts of historical or ongoing significance
made to the Debian Private Mailing List.

This process will be undertaken under the following constraints:

  * The Debian Project Leader will delegate one or more volunteers
to form the "debian-private declassification team".

  * The team will automatically declassify and publish posts made to
that list that are three or more years old, with the following
exceptions:

- the author and other individuals quoted in messages being reviewed
  will be contacted, and allowed between four and eight weeks
  to comment;

- posts that reveal financial information about individuals or
  organisations other than Debian, will have that information
  removed;

- requests by the author of a post for that post not to be published
  will be honoured;

- posts of no historical or other relevance, such as vacation
  announcements, or posts that have no content after personal
  information is removed, will not be published, unless the author
  requests they be published;

- comments by others who would be affected by the publication of
  the post will also be taken into account by the declassification
  team;

- the list of posts to be declassified will be made available to
  developers two weeks before publication, so that the decisions
  of the team may be overruled by the developer body by General
  Resolution, if necessary -- in the event such a resolution is
  introduced (ie, proposed and sponsored), the declassification
  and publication of messages specified by the resolution will be
  deferred until the resolution has been voted on.
---

> According to the interweb, classified US government documents relating
> to national security have to be released after at most ten years (unless
> there're particular reasons to extend that); the oldest mail in the
> -private archives turns ten on January 21st next year. I don't want to
> see Debian be more secretive than the US military industrial complex :)
> 
> And beyond that, there really are a lot of good ideas stuck in the
> -private archives that it'd be nice to be able to refer to properly.

The changes since the original:

   - authors have a veto over publication (Manoj's changes)
   - people quoted in messages rather than other recipients should be
 contacted
   - security problems don't get special treatment; they can be vetoed
 by the post's author though
   - specific details for overriding the team's decisions by the
 developers

Seconds so far:

   Don Armstrong (original or Manoj's changes)
   Joey Hess (original only, no comment on Manoj's changes)
   Wouter Verhelst (Manoj's changes, no comment on original)
   Bas Zoetekouw (Manoj's changes, no comment on original)
   Daniel Ruoso (original preferred over Manoj's changes)

Five's enough to second a proposal, but only if they all second the same
one :)

> Comments, suggestions and seconds appreciated.

Cheers,
aj



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature