Re: GR Proposal 2: Declassification of -private
#include hallo.h * 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 3: Declassification of -private - Future content only
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 11:41:34AM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote: -- Thus, I propose that the Debian project resolve that the process defined in GR Proposal 2 will be applied *only* for the future content of debian-private mailing list. -- To me, it's a second option that would make possible to avoid creating more un-declassificable material on -private even if the GR Proposal 2 is rejected. I second this proposal. Neil -- __ .` `. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Application Manager : :' ! | Secure-Testing Team member '. `- gpg: B345BDD3| Webapps Team member `- Please don't cc, I'm subscribed to the list signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GR Proposal 2: Declassification of -private
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
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]
Extreme site news: domestic rape and sexual abuse
Hello, This message is intended for our customers who subscribed for monthly news letters. This month we present our new web site containing rape video and pics galleries depicting brutal incest. Get a chance to watch: a father fucking his daughter a brother fucking his sister All the above mentioned is up for grabs and can be easily purchased if you go to http://extremeincesthouse.com It is not a solicitation e-mail. You received this e-mail, as our valued customer newsletters. If you think you got this message by mistake or do not want to get monthly newsletters anymore notify us by clicking the link http://extremeincesthouse.com/uns32324522e.htm -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GR Proposal 2: Declassification of -private
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
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
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
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] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 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: Declassification of -private
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 15:38:54 +1000, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au said: So, the way I would think it'd work is: 1) team selects one or two months worth of -private posts to declassify 2) team goes through the posts, marking any that shouldn't be released 3) team sends out mails to authors of posts (which might include people whose mails were forwarded to -private, or the family of deceased folks, or others) giving them some notice of what's going on and time to object 4) team collects responses and makes that info available to developers 5) team releases the mails that've been declassified Having default answers for whether mails can be released potentially reduces (3) and (4), but I would've thought those'd be the most easily automatable parts anyway. With the change, the team selects the posts, and can publish them without having to contact their authors, unless a do not declassify this post note is present. For these (a certain percentage, X), the team would need to contact the authors if they consider that the post should be published and want them to change their mind. The difference would be that with no reply, it can't be published (with Manoj's amendment; otherwise the team would decide whether to overrule the author). I have a question about this process. Suppose some one, Author A, made a long post to private, and has indicated that they do not want to make the long post public. Now, later in that month, Author B, quoted the entirety of Author A's post, with an AOL comment (or a more substantive response), and has indicated they have no objection to declassification. Does Author A's mail get outed anyway as part of author B's response? In other wrods, shall the declassification committee redact quotes in mails the primary author has said is OK to the publish, but in the scenario the quoted authors do not wish their words to be made public? manoj -- It seems like the less a statesman amounts to, the more he loves the flag. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 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: Declassification of -private
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 08:15:21PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Does Author A's mail get outed anyway as part of author B's response? In other wrods, shall the declassification committee redact quotes in mails the primary author has said is OK to the publish, but in the scenario the quoted authors do not wish their words to be made public? I would assume and expect so; at the very least that comes under the comments by others who would be affected by the publication of the post will also be taken into account by the declassification team clause. The other potential issue is private mails to a developer that get forwarded on by that developer; the original author oughtn't be left of the loop. There's a similar case if a developer posts So-and-so told me that I'm not confident I can guess all the scenarios in advance, but I think there's sufficient opportunity for the delegates to make good decisions and for the developers to check them over. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
