On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 02:55:41AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > On 23-09-2004 19:30, Richard A. Hecker wrote: > ...<snip>... > | It is wrong for a person to equate d-private == secret_content. > > Somewhat true. The problem is that emails not explicitly declared > differently must be kept secret. > > We are lazy so we do not subscribe to additional lists but rely on > debian-private where we got subscribed by default. We are lazy and just > want to get hold of "the developers" so we use debian-private. We are > lazy and do not declare each and every time content posted to > debian-private is allowed quoted elsewere. > > What I see is a practical situation of laziness. I also see a practical > solution: > > ~ * Subscribe all developers by default to debian-project. > ~ * For each mail posted to debian-private require a one-line explanation > of why it should be treated as a secret (and if only for a while then > what would trigger release of the secrecy-lock). > I see this secrecy-lock as a byproduct of d-private and not the main goal. As you acknowledge above, laziness is the issue. Your solution requires lazy people to jump through an extra step.
> > | If a concensus developed about the rules, I think we would > | see less bickering on d-private. I doubt if we could eliminate it all, > | because flamage was created in our geek community ;-) > > I am _not_ talking about noise. Flamage or not, we should not keep > things secret unless really really necessary. > > I am trying to avoid unnecessary secrets. Please do not mix that with > avoiding noise! > As I said, secrecy is a byproduct. We treat it with an all-or-nothing type of rule. If common sense were truly common, we might have that concensus on the rules. BTW, I think your solution might cut down on the noise. But I know you want to focus on secrecy instead of noise ;-) Richard P.S. I agree that secrets should really really be necessary before we classify them as such.