Re: Amendment to Proposed GR: Declassifying parts of -private of historical interest

[David Kalnischkies]

On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 11:46:43PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 08, 2016 at 07:56:07PM +0200, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> > If on the other hand we say: Listmaster can come up with a proposal
> > which can be discussed and as ultima ratio vetoed by GR (or by DPL via
> > delegation revocation)
> 
> I don't think the DPL can not undo a decision made by someone else.
> Either that decision was delegated, and you have this in 5.1.1:
> 
>Once a particular decision has been delegated and made the Project
>Leader may not withdraw that delegation; however, they may withdraw
>an ongoing delegation of particular area of responsibility.


I would used the exact same paragraph in my defense. It probably all
depends on where such an instance would actually be on the scale between
"particular decision" and "area of responsibility". Also, there can
probably something be said about that the decision of declassification
hasn't been made yet if sufficient time is required prior to it.

But frankly, while I tend to like splitting words, in that particular
case I think the base assumption of a community failing so hard is so
unlikely, gross and ultimately offensive that I don't want to think
about it any more than I already did.

So: Thanks for bringing it up and yes, I full agree, I could be wrong
wrong about my DPL-sidecomment and hence revoke it.


> This GR seems to give explicit powers to the listmaster to do that
> and so wouldn't need a delegation for that, but also gives the DPL
> the power to delegate it to others, so both options seem to exist.

My reading as well, which would also explain why GRs are explicitly
mentioned as for delegates alone that wouldn't really be needed
(subject again to the "been made/override" vs. "prior/object").


Best regards

David Kalnischkies


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Amendment to Proposed GR: Declassifying parts of -private of historical interest

[David Kalnischkies]

On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 11:08:22PM +, Nick Phillips wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-08-09 at 11:40 +0200, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> 
> > In other words: You believe in the serious possibility that
> > listmasters
> > are evil people who will propose a process violating the interest of
> > these contributors and YOU and every other current developer will not
> > raise their voice against it.
> 
> I believe that well-meaning listmasters might propose a process that
> would treat "being open" as being more important than "treating our
> past and present contributors with the respect I believe they are due".
> And I believe that it is possible that for a variety of reasons
> including inertia, they might perceive that there is no significant
> objection to their carrying it out.

But they can't "carry it out" without giving enough time to all of the
Debian community to object to it regardless of how much they might
believe that nobody would object, which is what I think is deeply
repelling about your implied scenario and why I object so violently:
That the community as a whole will not and does not care.

If the thread model is really a non-caring community, no GR passed or
not will ever protect you from anything – and at least more important
for me, I don't want to be part of a community who doesn't care as its
an inherent requirement for me that a community does care or else it
simple isn't one.

I realize now that I might have crossed a line in anger in the process
of expressing this, which I am sorry if it has hurt you. Just realize
that these last minute replies from various people have hurt others as
well, even if not intended – and as I have said everything I wanted to
say about this topic I am fine with agreeing that we completely disagree
and will drop that thread now.


Best regards

David Kalnischkies


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Amendment to Proposed GR: Declassifying parts of -private of historical interest

[Nick Phillips]

On Tue, 2016-08-09 at 11:40 +0200, David Kalnischkies wrote:

> In other words: You believe in the serious possibility that
> listmasters
> are evil people who will propose a process violating the interest of
> these contributors and YOU and every other current developer will not
> raise their voice against it.
> 
> Sorry, but all which is missing from a five years old perspective in
> this completely madeup and irrational horror story is the Bogeyman.
> 
> 
> I already told you how the Bogeyman would defeat your well intended
> but
> completely unspecific consent GR: It would use a medium and you need
> a freaking GR to remove that loophole while in the proposed scheme
> you
> can just tell the Bogeyman that (s)he is crazy and either (s)he fixes
> the proposal, the DPL fires the Bogeyman and/or a GR stops the
> proposal.

I believe that well-meaning listmasters might propose a process that
would treat "being open" as being more important than "treating our
past and present contributors with the respect I believe they are due".
And I believe that it is possible that for a variety of reasons
including inertia, they might perceive that there is no significant
objection to their carrying it out.

On the subject of due respect, please try to treat this list with the
respect it is due as well; I don't believe the tone of your post is
appropriate. A desire to avoid engaging in such a manner is another
reason (beside general agreement) why people keep quiet on these lists.


Cheers,


Nick
-- 
Nick Phillips / nick.phill...@otago.ac.nz / 03 479 4195
# These statements are mine, not those of the University of Otago

Re: Amendment to Proposed GR: Declassifying parts of -private of historical interest

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Mon, Aug 08, 2016 at 07:56:07PM +0200, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> If on the other hand we say: Listmaster can come up with a proposal
> which can be discussed and as ultima ratio vetoed by GR (or by DPL via
> delegation revocation)

I don't think the DPL can not undo a decision made by someone else.
Either that decision was delegated, and you have this in 5.1.1:

   Once a particular decision has been delegated and made the Project
   Leader may not withdraw that delegation; however, they may withdraw
   an ongoing delegation of particular area of responsibility.

Or it wasn't delagated and someone did it using his own powers.
In 5.1.4 the DPL seems to be restricted in what his powers are:

   Make any decision for whom noone else has responsibility.

This GR seems to give explicit powers to the listmaster to do that
and so wouldn't need a delegation for that, but also gives the DPL
the power to delegate it to others, so both options seem to exist.


Kurt

Re: more GRs to come (Re: Current GRs clarification)

[Axel Beckert]

Hi,

Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 11:06:03PM +0200, Debian Project Secretary - Kurt 
> Roeckx wrote:
> > GR about declassifying debian-private
> > =
> > 
> > There are 2 options on the ballot:
> > - Choice 1: Allow declassifying parts of debian-private
> > - Choice 2: Further Discussion
> > 
> > If the first option wins, the GR of 2005 is repealed and replaced
> > by this GR.  If the second option wins, nothing changes and the GR
> > of 2005 will stay in effect.
> 
> I expressed my surprise about a missing third option ("depeal the GR
> of 2005 and burry the idea of systematically declassifying
> debian-private") on #debian-private and have learned there that this
> seems to have been an oversight / others agree that there should have
> been this third option.
> 
> So, I hereby announce that I'll propose another GR to "depeal the GR
> of 2005 and burry the idea of systematically declassifying debian-private"
> if *this* GR turns out to result in "further discussion".

Seconded.

> (Because I think if choice 1 does *not* win, the project doesnt really
> want further discussion but rather this idea to be burried for good.)

Exactly.

Regards, Axel
-- 
 ,''`.  |  Axel Beckert , http://people.debian.org/~abe/
: :' :  |  Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin
`. `'   |  4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329  6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5
  `-|  1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486  202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Not A GR Proposal: merge debian-private into debian-curiosa

[Enrico Zini]

Hello,

There are two lists in Debian without a clear topic: debian-private and
debian-curiosa, and the only difference between the two lists is on who
can subscribe to them and whether they are publicly archived.

Since point 3 of the Social Contract says "We will not hide problems",
it can be argued (though not by me) that debian-private is just
debian-curiosa plus a violation of the social contract, and that this
situation must be rectified.

I therefore do not propose the following General Resolution:

=== BEGIN NON-GR TEXT ===

Title: merge debian-private into debian-curiosa.

1. Any GR mentioning debian-private, starting from the 2005 General
   Resolution titled "Declassification of debian-private list archives"
   and up to the time this General Resolution is approved, are repealed.
2. The debian-private mailing list is closed, and replaced by an alias
   to debian-curiosa.
3. All new Debian Developers will be automatically subscribed to
   debian-curiosa instead of debian-private.
4. All debian-private archives currently being privately kept on
   master.debian.org will be merged into the public archives of
   debian-curiosa.

=== END NON-GR TEXT ===

I do not propose this GR, because I believe that although our work does
not have a right to privacy, our members do, and there have been, there
are, and there will be cases in which an aspect of the personal life of
one or more of our members will be up for discussion, so we do need a
private list.

However, I want to make the point that anyone who finds it effective to
rely on the outcome of a GR to enforce the privacy of debian-private,
and does not trust for that purpose the judgement of a current or future
majority of active DDs, should probably consider not ever disclosing
anything private on any piece of infrastructure controlled by Debian.


Enrico

-- 
GPG key: 4096R/634F4BD1E7AD5568 2009-05-08 Enrico Zini 


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Amendment to Proposed GR: Declassifying parts of -private of historical interest

[David Kalnischkies]

On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 12:14:49AM +, Nick Phillips wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-08-08 at 19:56 +0200, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 03:45:12PM +, Bart Martens wrote:
> > Or as an "Explain like I'm Five" question: Why is the idea that
> > a process could be proposed by listmasters for declassification which
> > would be subject to review and with objection opportunity so
> > frightening
> > given that declassification happens every day by individuals –
> > without
> > review and without the possibility to object – via (accidental)
> > leakage?
> 
> It might be that a hypothetical process would ensure that it did not
> make public any message without approval of the author. I believe that
> this would be fine. It might however be that the hypothetical process
> would make public any message from any author who did not respond to an
> invitation to object, posted perhaps in a filing cabinet in a locked
> closet with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard"; since
> those authors did not object via GR, they would be assumed to be OK
> with the process. This would be Wrong. 

In other words: You believe in the serious possibility that listmasters
are evil people who will propose a process violating the interest of
these contributors and YOU and every other current developer will not
raise their voice against it.

Sorry, but all which is missing from a five years old perspective in
this completely madeup and irrational horror story is the Bogeyman.


I already told you how the Bogeyman would defeat your well intended but
completely unspecific consent GR: It would use a medium and you need
a freaking GR to remove that loophole while in the proposed scheme you
can just tell the Bogeyman that (s)he is crazy and either (s)he fixes
the proposal, the DPL fires the Bogeyman and/or a GR stops the proposal.


Best regards

David Kalnischkies


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature