On Fri, 6 Sep 2013, Michael Meskes wrote:
how do you envision a company with such restrictive policies giving
back to the developer and user community?
It amazes me how much time we spend discussing he "secret" nature of
the list although it was more than once said that this is not
necessarily meant to stay that way.
i would question the likelihood that discussions which begin in
privileged secrecy, and which include parties accustomed to that
privilege, will shed that same privilege by general consensus.
perhaps others have had experience quite different from mine, which
leads them to expect otherwise. but, needless to say, i know only my
own.
To answer your question, some topics simply cannot be put into the
open, but I can easily see these restrictive companies becoming more
open once they see where this is headed.
duly noted. you seem more optimistic about this than i am.
so the list would be a safe forum for companies with strict
policies against sharing information, to seek help from other
companies (with all privy parties being companies of some minimum
size, and employing some minimum number of debian project members).
Nice spin you put on the statement, although not backed my email. If
this is how you prefer to discuss, don't be surprised to not see any
answer.
afaict, i merely compiled several statements of yours into one,
without changing the meaning.
and i did so in the interest of clarity, not obfuscation. even if i
wanted to mislead, i believe it would be foolish to try in public
view.
but it seems i have offended you, which is something i have been
trying not to do. i have read over the sentence several times, and i
must confess i still cannot see the spin in it. could it be located
somewhere else?
either way, i am truly sorry to have caused you to doubt my sincerity.
regarding such special needs, i can think of a few projects that
could use hosting that provides a degree of confidentiality not
provided by the google-way. do you suppose that google could make
an exception for them? maybe forgo a little data-mining, deny
access to three-letter agencies, etc?
As a matter of fact I do expect my private discussion remain private
forever. That they don't may or may not be Google's fault. But
where's your point?
i meant to provide an analogy, by substituting a more conventional
institution for the debian project, so that you might be less
astonished at encountering criticism here.
does it puzzle you more, to encounter some resistance to secrecy
here?
In a way it does, after all nothing is withheld from the
project. Keep in mind that the DPL is subscribed, too.
are you saying that the project is informed because some members are
sure to be subscribed? i do not think that informs the project.
unless and until the list-internal consensus opens the list, i take it
that such members will be expected *not* to inform the project at
large.
if it seems to you like i am splitting hairs, here, i think we have
located an interesting point of contention. because that is precisely
how your claim to the contrary strikes me (assuming i have understood
it correctly).
Taking about the DPL, why is nobody complaining that
lea...@debian.org is not public? Relax, I'm just kidding.
i sincerely hope that other non-public aspects receive all due
scrutiny as well.
don't you?
You might want to search for those in the publicly available
archives.
is this two jokes in a row? or just a joke-and-a-half?
;)
best wishes,
wes
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/alpine.deb.2.00.1309060950400.22...@brutus.ling.ohio-state.edu
