Re: debian-private declassification team (looking for one)

[Craig Small]

On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 08:44:43PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> On 06/27/2010 11:11 PM, Serafeim Zanikolas wrote:
> > There's a compromise: revise the declassification rules to help automation.
> > Writing a perl script to filter msgs based on threading and well-defined
> > declassification headers shouldn't be that much of work.
I've actually started on something like that.  It basically finds the
threads of a mbox file, drops anything with [VAC] in the subject or
from a list of email addresses from people who 'never ever ever want
their emails released'. it then finds anything with those as reference
etc.  It will probably have to be a two-pass thing as you cannot
guarantee that emails are in the right order in the file.

So the list will be for the people that think private means private
always.  Unfortunately a side-effect of that means any subsequent email
in the thread will not be released, past the one that was blocked.

> I wouldn't mind to add something like
> X-Declassify-after: 3y
> header to my mails to -private.
I suspect the declassification will be done once per month. So it is
really a yes or no thing. A meta-header is certainly a great idea, for
both yes and no.

> Based on threading it is hard to decide is something should be declassified as
> in some threads only a few mails include sensitive content, like citations of
> other persons which are supposed to stay private forever.
I was going to err on the side of caution. If someone in a thread says
its private then it is and anything past that mail is too, even if there
is none of the original email in it.

The problem is you can never be sure.  Say I quote Bernd correctly, but
miss the quote of Serafiem, or at least the wrote: line then
you someone could think it's all Bernds words. If Bernd doesn't mind
his emails being declassified but Serefiem does, we've got a problem.

> Also I think some people expressed their wish that *all* of their mails should
> stay private forever (I'd have to search the archive for that, but I think 
> that
Yes, it will certainly cater for that.  It's no point saying 'all my
emails', you'd have to specify email addresses. If you miss an email
address it doesnt get released, you just get a reminder.

> And finally I think we should release Squeeze first before doing any work on
> this, a (good) release is much more important than bringing the muddy fights 
> of
I'm working on some of the infrastructure. It's not actually detracting
from my Debian work.

In fact even post-processing I imagine the emails won't hit the website.
They'll probably sit in a mbox folder somewhere for people to check.

 - Craig
-- 
Craig Small  GnuPG:1C1B D893 1418 2AF4 45EE  95CB C76C E5AC 12CA DFA5
http://www.enc.com.au/ csmall at : enc.com.au
http://www.debian.org/  Debian GNU/Linux, software should be Free 


-- 
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/20100702033229.ga22...@enc.com.au

Re: debian-private declassification team (looking for one)

[Bernd Zeimetz]

On 06/27/2010 11:11 PM, Serafeim Zanikolas wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 11:34:36AM +0200, Ralf Treinen wrote [edited]:
>> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 02:46:02PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
>>> I would welcome a new GR to rescind the previous one and revert d-private 
>>> to what it's always been: private.
>>
>> I would second a proposal for such a GR. If even those who argued in favour
>> of the declassification process at that time are not sufficiently motivated
>> to invest now some work in this then this proves to me that the  whole
>> thing is nonsense, and that we should get rid of it.
> 
> There's a compromise: revise the declassification rules to help automation.
> Writing a perl script to filter msgs based on threading and well-defined
> declassification headers shouldn't be that much of work.

Ack, but that is only something which could be used in the future.
I wouldn't mind to add something like
X-Declassify-after: 3y
header to my mails to -private.

Based on threading it is hard to decide is something should be declassified as
in some threads only a few mails include sensitive content, like citations of
other persons which are supposed to stay private forever.

Also I think some people expressed their wish that *all* of their mails should
stay private forever (I'd have to search the archive for that, but I think that
came up when it was tried to form a declassification team some long time ago),
so the first thing to do would be to look trough the archive for such mails and
ensure that their wish is being followed. Especially for retired DDs (even worse
when they retired before that declassification theme came up) it should be
checked very carefully if their mails should be (probably against their wish)
being published.

And finally I think we should release Squeeze first before doing any work on
this, a (good) release is much more important than bringing the muddy fights of
debian-private to the public.

-- 
 Bernd ZeimetzDebian GNU/Linux Developer
 http://bzed.dehttp://www.debian.org
 GPG Fingerprints: 06C8 C9A2 EAAD E37E 5B2C BE93 067A AD04 C93B FF79
   ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F


-- 
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/4c2ce21b.9020...@bzed.de

Re: debian-private declassification team (looking for one)

[Clint Adams]

On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 04:51:21PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> The very first message may be private (or partially so), but the main
> part of the discussion usually isn't, and certainly the OT leaves of
> the discussion aren't. [In past four big threads we were 2/4 of
> starting messages being appropriate for -private...]

How about rejecting all mails with Re: or [OT] in the Subject?


-- 
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/20100701165000.ga11...@scru.org

Re: debian-private declassification team (looking for one)

[Serafeim Zanikolas]

On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 11:34:36AM +0200, Ralf Treinen wrote [edited]:
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 02:46:02PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> > I would welcome a new GR to rescind the previous one and revert d-private 
> > to what it's always been: private.
> 
> I would second a proposal for such a GR. If even those who argued in favour
> of the declassification process at that time are not sufficiently motivated
> to invest now some work in this then this proves to me that the  whole
> thing is nonsense, and that we should get rid of it.

There's a compromise: revise the declassification rules to help automation.
Writing a perl script to filter msgs based on threading and well-defined
declassification headers shouldn't be that much of work.

-- 
debtags-organised WNPP bugs: http://members.hellug.gr/serzan/wnpp


-- 
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/20100627211151.ga2...@mobee

Re: debian-private declassification team (looking for one)

[Ralf Treinen]

On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 02:46:02PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Friday 25 June 2010, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > I'm not sure I understand against *what* exactly you're arguing; nor it
> > is clear to me whether you are proposing a different course of action
> > than the status quo.
> >
> > The vote is there and we cannot change the past [...]
> 
> I would welcome a new GR to rescind the previous one and revert d-private 
> to what it's always been: private. That way we can stop worrying about the 
> whole issue and we will no longer run the risk of making things public 
> that their authors do not want to be made public.

I would second a proposal for such a GR. If even those who argued in favour
of the declassification process at that time are not sufficiently motivated
to invest now some work in this then this proves to me that the  whole
thing is nonsense, and that we should get rid of it.

-Ralf.


-- 
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/20100626093436.ga3...@free.fr

Re: debian-private declassification team (looking for one)

[Don Armstrong]

On Sat, 26 Jun 2010, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Saturday 26 June 2010, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > My own opinion is that we've done this backwards, and that everything
> > on -private modulo vacation messages and posts explicitely marked with
> > a header indicating that they shouldn't be declassified should be
> > declassified automatically after three years.
> 
> But that's not what the project decided to do, so it's rather moot.

It may be moot for the current -private archives, but we can always
change going forward.[1]

> > Unfortunatly, a large majority[1] of the messages to -private
> > shouldn't be private in the first place, or they only need to be
> > embargoed for a short period of time.
> 
> Any real evidence to support that rather strong claim?

From our most recent huge thread, with 97 messages, 50 of them at
least were trivially off topic; only about 15 of them contained any
useful information discussing the actual content, and the rest were
near-contentless +1/-1 messages. Two other threads of 30 and 41
mesages didn't belong on -private in the first place. So out of ≈210
non VAC messages, at least 111 of them didn't belong on -private (and
probably 50 of those didn't belong on any Debian mailing list except
-curiosa.)

> IMO most threads on d-private get started there because the sender
> actually wants the subject to be private.

The very first message may be private (or partially so), but the main
part of the discussion usually isn't, and certainly the OT leaves of
the discussion aren't. [In past four big threads we were 2/4 of
starting messages being appropriate for -private...]

> But it seems to me that those are also often the least interesting,
> so what's the gain in declassifying them?

Little, which is why no one has bothered to spend the time to do so.
[The fact that I feel strongly about openness and still won't spend
the time to devote to declassifying -private speaks for itself...]

> IMO the whole idea of partial declassification stinks anyway. Is it
> really desirable to declassify some messages in a thread but not
> others? Does that give "the public" a balanced view of a discussion?

If people are concerned about having their views represented when the
discussion is declassified, they shouldn't withhold them from
declassification.

> It also seems to me that in any declassification scheme the risk of
> declassifying a message which its author did not intend to ever
> become public is very high.

Frankly, if someone sends a message to -private which they think
should remain private forever, and it's not obvious that it should
remain so to the normal DD, it probably didn't need to be read by a
thousand DDs in the first place.

> Just consider that an objection also extends to any replies that
> quote (part) of it.

Obviously.

> I think it's safer to err on the conservative side and simply
> respect the privacy of the list unconditionally.

That option was further discussion, and lost...


Don Armstrong

1: It's mootness certainly doesn't change my opinion that we made a
mistake. [Hell, I seconded the current process, so *I* made a mistake
too.]
-- 
LEADERSHIP -- A form of self-preservation exhibited by people with
autodestructive imaginations in order to ensure that when it comes to
the crunch it'll be someone else's bones which go crack and not their
own. 
 -- The HipCrime Vocab by Chad C. Mulligan 
(John Brunner _Stand On Zanzibar_ p256-7)

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


--
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/20100625235121.gu31...@rzlab.ucr.edu

Re: debian-private declassification team (looking for one)

[Frans Pop]

On Saturday 26 June 2010, Don Armstrong wrote:
> My own opinion is that we've done this backwards, and that everything
> on -private modulo vacation messages and posts explicitely marked with
> a header indicating that they shouldn't be declassified should be
> declassified automatically after three years.

But that's not what the project decided to do, so it's rather moot.

> Unfortunatly, a large majority[1] of the messages to -private
> shouldn't be private in the first place, or they only need to be
> embargoed for a short period of time.

Any real evidence to support that rather strong claim? IMO most threads on 
d-private get started there because the sender actually wants the subject 
to be private.

I agree that some threads could just as well have been public and also that 
some threads branch out into subjects that could be public. But it seems 
to me that those are also often the least interesting, so what's the gain 
in declassifying them?

IMO the whole idea of partial declassification stinks anyway. Is it really 
desirable to declassify some messages in a thread but not others? Does 
that give "the public" a balanced view of a discussion?

It also seems to me that in any declassification scheme the risk of 
declassifying a message which its author did not intend to ever become 
public is very high. Just consider that an objection also extends to any 
replies that quote (part) of it. Or maybe someone simply forgets to 
mention that condition.

I think it's safer to err on the conservative side and simply respect the 
privacy of the list unconditionally.


-- 
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/201006260054.17327.elen...@planet.nl

Re: debian-private declassification team (looking for one)

[Serafeim Zanikolas]

On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 03:20:14PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote [edited]:
> My own opinion is that we've done this backwards, and that everything
> on -private modulo vacation messages and posts explicitely marked with
> a header indicating that they shouldn't be declassified should be
> declassified automatically after three years.

+1

When I first read the resolution, it really surprised me as to how
bureaucratic the defined process is, as opposed to something amenable to
automation.

-S


-- 
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/20100625224649.ga7...@mobee

Re: debian-private declassification team (looking for one)

[Don Armstrong]

On Fri, 25 Jun 2010, Frans Pop wrote:
> I would welcome a new GR to rescind the previous one and revert
> d-private to what it's always been: private. That way we can stop
> worrying about the whole issue and we will no longer run the risk of
> making things public that their authors do not want to be made
> public.

My own opinion is that we've done this backwards, and that everything
on -private modulo vacation messages and posts explicitely marked with
a header indicating that they shouldn't be declassified should be
declassified automatically after three years.

Unfortunatly, a large majority[1] of the messages to -private
shouldn't be private in the first place, or they only need to be
embargoed for a short period of time. [I think I've sent more messages
to people requesting that they not continue non-private (or just plain
useless) threads in -private than I've read messages which were
actually useful and contained information that needed to be on
-private.]


Don Armstrong

1: Ignoring VAC messages, of course.
-- 
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity. 
 -- Robert Heinlein

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


-- 
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/20100625222014.gt31...@rzlab.ucr.edu

Re: debian-private declassification team (looking for one)

[Peter Samuelson]

[Andreas Tille]
> I do not want to stop any volunteer to do the work.  I just doubt
> there will be anybody.

In other words,

1. You think declassification is not worth anyone's time

2. You are not volunteering to do it

3. You don't want to stop other people from volunteering to do it

Why even bother to post?  Seems to me you could have accomplished all
three points by just not hitting Reply.

> My ulterior motive in this suggestion was: How we can practically
> find out whether some is *really* interested in a work which consumes
> a team of DDs spare time.

What does that matter?  There are lots of things DDs do that we don't
know for sure if any users will care.  If you don't want to waste your
time doing those things, then don't.  But what's the point of a thread
discussing whether or not somebody other than you will decide to do
some work you don't think is useful?
-- 
Peter Samuelson | org-tld!p12n!peter | http://p12n.org/


-- 
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/20100625220522.ga3...@p12n.org

Re: debian-private declassification team (looking for one)

[Faidon Liambotis]

On 25/06/2010 07:43 μμ, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I would welcome a new GR to rescind the previous one and revert
>> d-private to what it's always been: private. That way we can stop
>> worrying about the whole issue and we will no longer run the risk of
>> making things public that their authors do not want to be made public.
> 
> +1.  Then people wouldn't have to keep putting "this is private" in
> messages and could just assume it.  If there aren't enough volunteers to
> do the work anyway, we're wasting low levels of energy making people aware
> of this right now.
I agree as well. There's no point in making promises we cannot fulfill;
if anything, it makes us look bad.

We should just accept the fact that noone will ever re-read a big pile
of old, heated, discussions and vacation notices just to publicize parts
of them. The time plus the risk of making a mistake (and the fallout of
that) just doesn't worth it.

Regards,
Faidon


-- 
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/4c24f9ce.8070...@debian.org

Re: debian-private declassification team (looking for one)

[Russ Allbery]

Frans Pop  writes:

> I would welcome a new GR to rescind the previous one and revert
> d-private to what it's always been: private. That way we can stop
> worrying about the whole issue and we will no longer run the risk of
> making things public that their authors do not want to be made public.

+1.  Then people wouldn't have to keep putting "this is private" in
messages and could just assume it.  If there aren't enough volunteers to
do the work anyway, we're wasting low levels of energy making people aware
of this right now.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   


-- 
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/87zkyjqczq@windlord.stanford.edu

Re: debian-private declassification team (looking for one)

[Andreas Tille]

On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 01:59:53PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> The vote is there and we cannot change the past;

I do not want to change the past.

> the vote gives a
> process (as Bernhard observed in a different post) and shows our
> willingness to be transparent. Are you proposing to state explicitly
> that the vote is moot?

No it is not.  In the sense of Bernd the vote just shows our
willingness.  But the effect of the vote is in my opinion not more.  (In
a similar way we could vote on having nice weather conditions next
summer.  I would agree on this, but I think there is nothing we can
really do about the realisation of this vote.) 

> I disagree, it is not. Still it is currently not
> implemented. The only thing that has changed is that we now clearly
> state that it is so and detail what is needed to go forward.  Are you
> against any of the above? I personally see no regression in all that.

I do not want to stop any volunteer to do the work.  I just doubt there
will be anybody.
 
> > To throw in some fire into the discussion: If somebody want's us to do
> > this work, he should probably pay for this.  IMHO this kind of work
> > needs some more motivation than just that some people decided.  If
> > nobody is willing to pay for the work which has to be done (not the
> > content which is free for sure) there is obviosely not enough interest
> > in getting the work done.  (And I personally would vote against spending
> > Debian's own money for this.)
> 
> This is a very slippery rope:

Yes, this was intended.

> it is us who voted, not someone external to the project;

To stick to my example above: If we would vote on good weather
conditions, do you think we are really responsible to start working on
this just because we voted on it?  You just have no handle on volunteers
to do a boring job like this.

> arguing now that that someone should pay, if she really
> cares about obtaining the result, sounds very weird.

Well not really.  We agreed that somebody is *allowed* to do the work
(instead of keeping the information secret).  We did not voted on the
means which are needed that someone really does the work.  (If I
remember correctly I *intentionally* did not voted on this GR because
I was wondering who would really do the work.)

My ulterior motive in this suggestion was: How we can practically find
out whether some is *really* interested in a work which consumes a team
of DDs spare time.

> But OK, that was
> just to heat the discussion (do we really need that?), so I probably
> shouldn't have bitten :)

Yes, the main motivation was "do we really need that?" and stretching
the idea a bit to some provoking ends.  Also my answer to your arguing
was not completely honest, just continue provoking.  And I go even
further:  I will probably not continue to spend my time on discussing
this issue - it is probably wasted as well, because it just does not
change the issue as it is.

Kind regards

Andreas.

-- 
http://fam-tille.de


-- 
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/20100625124434.gc17...@an3as.eu

Re: debian-private declassification team (looking for one)

[Frans Pop]

On Friday 25 June 2010, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> I'm not sure I understand against *what* exactly you're arguing; nor it
> is clear to me whether you are proposing a different course of action
> than the status quo.
>
> The vote is there and we cannot change the past [...]

I would welcome a new GR to rescind the previous one and revert d-private 
to what it's always been: private. That way we can stop worrying about the 
whole issue and we will no longer run the risk of making things public 
that their authors do not want to be made public.

Cheers,
FJP


-- 
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/201006251446.03481.elen...@planet.nl

Re: debian-private declassification team (looking for one)

[Stefano Zacchiroli]

On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 01:19:42PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> I clearly remember that vote.  But how much sense does this vote make if
> nobody does the actual work?  Voting about a decision is cheap, but
> doing the work is not.  Normally you vote between comparable options.
> We voted between "no work at all, just proceed as before" and "doing an
> in principle reasonable thing which cases a lot of work (not to mention
> triggering fatal failures)".  If you ask me the voting was based only on
> "in principle reasonable" but not on "I want to do this work".

I'm not sure I understand against *what* exactly you're arguing; nor it
is clear to me whether you are proposing a different course of action
than the status quo.

The vote is there and we cannot change the past; the vote gives a
process (as Bernhard observed in a different post) and shows our
willingness to be transparent. Are you proposing to state explicitly
that the vote is moot? I disagree, it is not. Still it is currently not
implemented. The only thing that has changed is that we now clearly
state that it is so and detail what is needed to go forward.  Are you
against any of the above? I personally see no regression in all that.

> To throw in some fire into the discussion: If somebody want's us to do
> this work, he should probably pay for this.  IMHO this kind of work
> needs some more motivation than just that some people decided.  If
> nobody is willing to pay for the work which has to be done (not the
> content which is free for sure) there is obviosely not enough interest
> in getting the work done.  (And I personally would vote against spending
> Debian's own money for this.)

This is a very slippery rope: it is us who voted, not someone external
to the project; arguing now that that someone should pay, if she really
cares about obtaining the result, sounds very weird.  But OK, that was
just to heat the discussion (do we really need that?), so I probably
shouldn't have bitten :)

Cheers.

-- 
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
z...@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..|  .  |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...| ..: | Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: debian-private declassification team (looking for one)

[Bernhard R. Link]

* Stefano Zacchiroli  [100625 12:57]:
> Apparently ATM we don't have the energy to do that. That is just fine:
> we are all volunteers and we cannot be forced to do specific stuff.
> Still, we need to show our honesty, clarify our willingness to implement
> our decision, and make clear the needed conditions for that GR to be
> implemented. I believe that the wiki page and the pointer to it from the
> vote page are enough of a message in that respect.
>
> If anything, this episode might also help us realize that before voting
> on a matter (or proposing to vote on a matter) we should think twice at
> the possibility of keeping up with what the vote entails.
> .oO( "vote is cheap, show me the volunteers" ?)

Even if not acted on, the vote still has the advantage that it specifies
a proper process. We do not need any heated discussions next time and
noone can claim they did not know something like this would happen with
their mail. And if someone complains they cannot quote some publically
or use in some scientific paper they can be told they just need to
volunteer

I might be too much looking at Debian from the inside, but I never
considered it to have any effect without volunteers willing to do so.

Bernhard R. Link


-- 
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/20100625114435.ga8...@pcpool00.mathematik.uni-freiburg.de

Re: debian-private declassification team (looking for one)

[Andreas Tille]

On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 12:57:06PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> But this
> is not the point here: the point is rather that we had a vote on the
> matter, we decided as a project that such archives shall be
> declassified. Now it's time to keep up with what we promised.

I clearly remember that vote.  But how much sense does this vote make if
nobody does the actual work?  Voting about a decision is cheap, but
doing the work is not.  Normally you vote between comparable options.
We voted between "no work at all, just proceed as before" and "doing an
in principle reasonable thing which cases a lot of work (not to mention
triggering fatal failures)".  If you ask me the voting was based only on
"in principle reasonable" but not on "I want to do this work".
 
> Apparently ATM we don't have the energy to do that. That is just fine:
> we are all volunteers and we cannot be forced to do specific stuff.
> Still, we need to show our honesty, clarify our willingness to implement
> our decision, and make clear the needed conditions for that GR to be
> implemented. I believe that the wiki page and the pointer to it from the
> vote page are enough of a message in that respect.

To throw in some fire into the discussion: If somebody want's us to do
this work, he should probably pay for this.  IMHO this kind of work
needs some more motivation than just that some people decided.  If
nobody is willing to pay for the work which has to be done (not the
content which is free for sure) there is obviosely not enough interest
in getting the work done.  (And I personally would vote against spending
Debian's own money for this.)
 
> If anything, this episode might also help us realize that before voting
> on a matter (or proposing to vote on a matter) we should think twice at
> the possibility of keeping up with what the vote entails.
> .oO( "vote is cheap, show me the volunteers" ?)

Yep.  IMHO the vote is just void and was done in an emotional heat.

Kind regards

Andreas.

-- 
http://fam-tille.de


-- 
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/20100625111942.gb14...@an3as.eu

Re: debian-private declassification team (looking for one)

[Stefano Zacchiroli]

On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 10:36:24AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> I have the gut feeling that this declassification issue is some kind of
> RFP bug which nobody really wants to pick.  If you ask me if I would
> prefer people working on fixing RC bugs or rather reading piles of old
> mails to decide about declasification or not I would have a clear
> answer.

> PS: Stefano, all people who disagree with my mail are obviosely
> volunteers for the declassification team and will probably start
> working on it soon.

I surely agree that, having to choose on where we should put energies,
fixing RC bugs is a way better investment of volunteer time (.. and I
hope this is enough to avoid being hit by your side rule :-)). But this
is not the point here: the point is rather that we had a vote on the
matter, we decided as a project that such archives shall be
declassified. Now it's time to keep up with what we promised.

Apparently ATM we don't have the energy to do that. That is just fine:
we are all volunteers and we cannot be forced to do specific stuff.
Still, we need to show our honesty, clarify our willingness to implement
our decision, and make clear the needed conditions for that GR to be
implemented. I believe that the wiki page and the pointer to it from the
vote page are enough of a message in that respect.

If anything, this episode might also help us realize that before voting
on a matter (or proposing to vote on a matter) we should think twice at
the possibility of keeping up with what the vote entails.
.oO( "vote is cheap, show me the volunteers" ?)

Cheers.

-- 
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
z...@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..|  .  |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...| ..: | Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: debian-private declassification team (looking for one)

[Andreas Tille]

On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 09:58:23AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> 
> Status update on this. We got some volunteers, but no one with actually
> enough free time to start doing the declassification right now. In fact,

I have the gut feeling that this declassification issue is some kind of
RFP bug which nobody really wants to pick.  If you ask me if I would
prefer people working on fixing RC bugs or rather reading piles of old
mails to decide about declasification or not I would have a clear
answer.

IMHO we should rethink the issue:  In how far is spending time into
declassification of old E-Mails helpful for our users and Debian as a
project.  Just to prove we are open (except of about 10% of the not
declassification mails)?  Does anybody think that some thousand of
people after declassification of mails will start reading those old
stuff?

To get me correct: I'm not against declassification in general and I'd
be fine if all my mails to debian-pr would be published - but the effort
to do the actual work just drains time from people who could spend their
time more effectively for the good of Debian.

Kind regards

   Andreas.

PS: Stefano, all people who disagree with my mail are obviosely
volunteers for the declassification team and will probably start
working on it soon.

-- 
http://fam-tille.de


-- 
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/20100625083624.ga9...@an3as.eu

Re: debian-private declassification team (looking for one)

[Stefano Zacchiroli]

On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 05:06:12PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> I've been reminded [1] that we're still pending implementation of the
> General Resolution entitled "Declassification of debian-private list
> archives" [2].

> If you are interested please mail  with your declaration of
> interest.

Status update on this. We got some volunteers, but no one with actually
enough free time to start doing the declassification right now. In fact,
more than that, what is needed is someone to set up a sustainable work
flow to both declassify in batch all the back log and then to keep up
routinely with the new stuff that can be declassified.

All that anticipated, it would be pointless to keep on reiterating "call
for helps" on this in the future (e.g. at each DPL change :)). So, with
the help of the secretary, we've added the following notice to the vote
page [2]:

> Note: This resolution is currently being implemented, but is not fully
> deployed yet. Check the status page for more information.

where "status page" is an anchor pointing to [1], that contains the
following text:

> Debian is more than willing to keep up to its promises and implement
> what the outcome of this GR requires. Still, the declassification
> cannot happen per se, but rather needs Debian Developer volunteers to
> actually do that.
>
> Until a suitable team of volunteers with the energy to work on the
> issue shows up, this GR will remain not implemented.
>
> Bottom line: help is needed. If you are interested to help, please
> check the last call for help on the matter and contact
> lea...@debian.org to volunteer.
>
> Ideally, in your mail you should come up with a suitable
> declassification work flow for both past messages and for new messages
> that daily become declassifiable.

If anyone of you want to see this happen, you know what to do and/or you
can point other people to that page.

Cheers.


[1] http://wiki.debian.org/DebianPrivateDeclassification
[2] http://www.debian.org/vote/2005/vote_002

-- 
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
z...@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..|  .  |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...| ..: | Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: debian-private declassification team (looking for one)

[Russ Allbery]

Steve McIntyre  writes:
> On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 12:53:13PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:

>> I had actually glanced at working on this earlier, but stopped after a
>> small bit of time, because it wasn't particularly useful, and because
>> the sheer amount of work that it would require to satisfy the terms of
>> the GR. (And frankly, the majority of the conversations in the archive
>> either aren't interesting enough to bother publishing, or are on topics
>> that such a large number of people will want their messages redacted,
>> that it's kind of useless.)

> Exactly. As DPL, I asked for volunteers for this back in Jan 2009 but
> didn't push it very hard. At the time, only a couple of people got in
> touch directly to say they were interested.

The GR was an interesting idea, but based on the number of debian-private
participants who, for anything that would be of any interest whatsoever
after three years, have said they don't want their messages ever
disclosed, I think in practice participants have spoken and have basically
vetoed any sort of effective disclosure.

People have gotten much better about pushing things out of debian-private
when they no longer become about things that need to be private, which is
probably the best solution anyway.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   


-- 
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/87632ftwgw@windlord.stanford.edu

Re: debian-private declassification team (looking for one)

[Steve McIntyre]

On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 12:53:13PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
>On Sat, 22 May 2010, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>> Note that as of now, the team will "just" have to review less than
>> 1.5 half of posts (which shouldn't be *that* daunting I guess),
>> besides setting up a work-flow and decide upon the technical details
>> of the actual publishing.
>
>I had actually glanced at working on this earlier, but stopped after a
>small bit of time, because it wasn't particularly useful, and because
>the sheer amount of work that it would require to satisfy the terms of
>the GR. (And frankly, the majority of the conversations in the archive
>either aren't interesting enough to bother publishing, or are on
>topics that such a large number of people will want their messages
>redacted, that it's kind of useless.)

Exactly. As DPL, I asked for volunteers for this back in Jan 2009 but
didn't push it very hard. At the time, only a couple of people got in
touch directly to say they were interested.

-- 
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com
< sladen> I actually stayed in a hotel and arrived to find a post-it
  note stuck to the mini-bar saying "Paul: This fridge and
  fittings are the correct way around and do not need altering"


-- 
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/2010050708.gd4...@einval.com

Re: debian-private declassification team (looking for one)

[Don Armstrong]

On Sat, 22 May 2010, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Note that as of now, the team will "just" have to review less than
> 1.5 half of posts (which shouldn't be *that* daunting I guess),
> besides setting up a work-flow and decide upon the technical details
> of the actual publishing.

I had actually glanced at working on this earlier, but stopped after a
small bit of time, because it wasn't particularly useful, and because
the sheer amount of work that it would require to satisfy the terms of
the GR. (And frankly, the majority of the conversations in the archive
either aren't interesting enough to bother publishing, or are on
topics that such a large number of people will want their messages
redacted, that it's kind of useless.)


Don Armstrong

-- 
Some pirates achieved immortality by great deeds of cruelty or
derring-do. Some achieved immortality by amassing great wealth. But
the captain had long ago decided that he would, on the whole, prefer
to achieve immortality by not dying.
 -- Terry Pratchet _The Color of Magic_

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


-- 
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/20100522195313.ge4...@teltox.donarmstrong.com

Re: debian-private declassification team (looking for one)

[Frans Pop]

On Saturday 22 May 2010, martin f krafft wrote:
> How about making archive chunks available e.g. at monthly periods
> and telling people they have 2 months to voice objections before the
> stuff is simply disclosed. Those people who don't want their stuff
> disclosed are the ones that should be doing the work, no?

That won't work.

Various people have already indicated (either in individual posts, or with 
a blanket statement) that some or all of their posts should not be 
declassified.

It also does not allow for people who are no longer DDs: they would not be 
able to object to declassification.


-- 
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/201005221835.49988.elen...@planet.nl

Re: debian-private declassification team (looking for one)

[Stephen Gran]

This one time, at band camp, martin f krafft said:
> also sprach Stefano Zacchiroli  [2010.05.22.1706
> +0200]:
> > I've been reminded [1] that we're still pending implementation of
> > the General Resolution entitled "Declassification of debian-private
> > list archives" [2].  According to the GR outcome, the DPL should «
> > delegate one or more volunteers to form the debian-private
> > declassification team ». Such a team will review -private posts
> > older than 3 years, starting from the posting date of 01/01/2006,
> > and declassify them (or not) according to the rules expressed in the
> > GR text. I'll be happy to do so, but I need the volunteers first :-)
> 
> How about making archive chunks available e.g. at monthly periods and
> telling people they have 2 months to voice objections before the stuff
> is simply disclosed. Those people who don't want their stuff disclosed
> are the ones that should be doing the work, no?

Given that that's not the process we voted on, no.

Cheers,
-- 
 -
|   ,''`.Stephen Gran |
|  : :' :sg...@debian.org |
|  `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer |
|`- http://www.debian.org |
 -


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: debian-private declassification team (looking for one)

[Julien BLACHE]

martin f krafft  wrote:

Hi,

> How about making archive chunks available e.g. at monthly periods
> and telling people they have 2 months to voice objections before the
> stuff is simply disclosed. Those people who don't want their stuff
> disclosed are the ones that should be doing the work, no?

You'll need a GR for that.

JB.

-- 
 Julien BLACHE - Debian & GNU/Linux Developer -  
 
 Public key available on  - KeyID: F5D6 5169 
 GPG Fingerprint : 935A 79F1 C8B3 3521 FD62 7CC7 CD61 4FD7 F5D6 5169 


-- 
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/871vd36gps@sonic.technologeek.org

Re: debian-private declassification team (looking for one)

[Clint Adams]

On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 06:07:38PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> How about making archive chunks available e.g. at monthly periods
> and telling people they have 2 months to voice objections before the
> stuff is simply disclosed. Those people who don't want their stuff
> disclosed are the ones that should be doing the work, no?

If you want me to do any more work than reminding some committee
that I don't want my communications to -private declassified in
whole or in part, then I think you will need to propose a new GR.


-- 
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/20100522162009.ga12...@scru.org

Re: debian-private declassification team (looking for one)

[martin f krafft]

also sprach Stefano Zacchiroli  [2010.05.22.1706 +0200]:
> I've been reminded [1] that we're still pending implementation of the
> General Resolution entitled "Declassification of debian-private list
> archives" [2].  According to the GR outcome, the DPL should « delegate
> one or more volunteers to form the debian-private declassification
> team ». Such a team will review -private posts older than 3 years,
> starting from the posting date of 01/01/2006, and declassify them (or
> not) according to the rules expressed in the GR text. I'll be happy to
> do so, but I need the volunteers first :-)

How about making archive chunks available e.g. at monthly periods
and telling people they have 2 months to voice objections before the
stuff is simply disclosed. Those people who don't want their stuff
disclosed are the ones that should be doing the work, no?

-- 
 .''`.   martin f. krafft   Related projects:
: :'  :  proud Debian developer   http://debiansystem.info
`. `'`   http://people.debian.org/~madduckhttp://vcs-pkg.org
  `-  Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems
 
Unless otherwise noted, you may disclose anything I say on this list.


digital_signature_gpg.asc
Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/)