On Sat, 16 Jul 2016, Iain Lane wrote: > (GRs are, of course, always going to be on the table regardless.)
The procedure and declassification could potentially occur to quickly for a GR to intervene. I don't expect listmasters or any delegate to actually do that, though. On Sat, 16 Jul 2016, Nicolas Dandrimont wrote: > I'm very close to seconding it. However, I wonder why, in the second phrase, > you're restricting the process of objecting to declassification to a GR. The text doesn't restrict the objection process to a GR, but to require that a GR could occur. On Sat, 16 Jul 2016, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > Can you clarify which is which Don? My intention was to ensure there was enough time and opportunity for Developers to object before each declassification at minimum. A public vote over potentially declassifying e-mails would be bad, but I trust that listmaster@ or anyone who gets delegated by the DPL will follow a procedure which addresses this issue before it gets to the point that such a GR is required. Perhaps the following adjustment: 2. Debian listmasters and/or other individuals delegated by the DPL to do so are authorized to declassify excerpts of -private of historical interest by any process which [+ at minimum +] provides sufficient opportunity for Debian Developers to object by GR prior to declassification. communicates this more effectively and addresses that concern? -- Don Armstrong https://www.donarmstrong.com The beauty of the DRUNKENNESS subprogram was that you could move your intoxication level up and down at will, instead of being caught on a relentless down escalator to bargain basement philosophy and the parking garage. -- Rudy von Bitter _Software_ p124