Re: Amendment to Proposed GR: Declassifying parts of -private of historical interest
On Wed, 2016-08-10 at 08:25 +0200, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: > So you do not believe "it would be acceptable for any message to be > made > public without explicit approval of the author", but the project has > _not_ > decided to make past messages' declassification dependent on explicit > approval; > only on "4-8 weeks time, no objection raised". > > The current process _allows_ declassification of posts from > unreachable, > incapacitated or dead participants. FWIW, I was not in favour of the current process at the time it was introduced, and I'm not in favour of it now either. Cheers, Nick -- Nick Phillips / nick.phill...@otago.ac.nz / 03 479 4195 # These statements are mine, not those of the University of Otago
Re: more GRs to come
Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: more GRs to come"):
> My current process only announces the GR once, after there were
> enough seconds. It might take me some days to find the time to
> set up the vote page, so by that time there could already be other
> proposals or not.
Of course.
> I guess it should be easy enough to send an e-mail every time I
> updated the vote page.
That would be great. I think that would help reduce the likelihood of
people being unpleasantly surprised, as some have recently been.
Thanks,
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
Re: more GRs to come
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 01:24:28PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > Perhaps it would be nice if sufficiently-seconded GR amendments, or > accepted GR amendments, were announced on d-d-a, by the Secretary. My current process only announces the GR once, after there were enough seconds. It might take me some days to find the time to set up the vote page, so by that time there could already be other proposals or not. I guess it should be easy enough to send an e-mail every time I updated the vote page. Kurt
Re: more GRs to come
On Wed, 10 Aug 2016, Micha Lenk wrote: > On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 02:33:34PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote on the > debian-private list: > > You're being very rude to every DD who participated in the discussion on > > -vote, the secretary, and myself by claiming that we intended to mislead > > you. > > Sorry, this was ment to be a joke. I do not believe that you intended > to mislead me, so please accept my apologies. Accepted; sorry that I made such a big deal about it. -- Don Armstrong https://www.donarmstrong.com Given that the odds of a miracle are one in one million, and events which could be a miracle happen every second, the odds of not seeing a miracle in a month are less than 8 in 100. Clearly miracles are not all that miraculous.
Re: more GRs to come
Don Armstrong writes ("Re: more GRs to come"):
> On Tue, 09 Aug 2016, Micha Lenk wrote:
> > But when it comes to policy, announcing the plan to do something, and
> > afterwards asking in a GR to do the opposite is a simple way to foster
> > real discussion.
>
> I proposed the amendment on 7/16, it was seconded by multiple DDs, then
> accepted by Nicolas, and no one objected for two weeks.
As one of the people who supports that amendment, I want to expand on
what Don is saying here:
> The amendment is almost exactly the same as the original text, with the
> addition of a paragraph which makes it explicit that listmaster@ and/or
> the DPL has the authority over list archives. This was the understanding
> of Nicolas, and mine as well.
One of the things that became clear in the discussion is that people
had different views of the pre-2006-GR status quo, and/or of the
effect of simply repealing it, and/or of the desirability of trusting
listmaster to get this right and/or when a future GR should be needed.
The key question, it turned out, was this: supposing there might be
some declassification of debian-private (whether of past or future
messages), should any such declassification necessarily require a
further GR ?
For example, consider my subject-line-date proposal[1] (that sank
without a trace). Many readings of the original GR (particularly with
its Subject line of `will remain private') would prohibit it without
another GR.
[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2016/07/msg00021.html
I support the amendment because I didn't want to put a massive
GR-shaped roadblock in the way of any future sensible improvements to
the way we handle debian-private. I _didn't_ support it because I
think old -private messages should be declassified against the wishes
of their authors.
Rather, I support it because trust listmaster (now and in the future)
to not propose anything stupid, to consult properly, to listen
feedback, and to act accordingly. And I (necessarily) trust the
future body of DDs to oversee any such process, and intervene if
necessary.
> Finally, for future reference, it's normal for GRs to include options
> which are the opposite of the original proposal. If you care about the
> subject matter, participate in -vote.
I think this is a very important point.
As a governing member of the project, any DD has a responsibility to
participate. I know that politics is annoying. This whole set of
threads is quite annoying to many people and has caused unfortunate
aggravation and hurt feelings.
But, ultimately, politics is what we do instead of force. In the
wider world it is what we do instead of killing each other. The best
we can hope for is to try to make it as constructive and respectful -
and as just - as we can.
I appreciate that some people feel they have been taken by surprise by
this vote, and are upset. But I think we should avoid suggesting that
the situation is somehow the fault of Nicolas, or of the Secretary, or
of those who seconded the amendment.
Instead we should consider constructive suggestions for how our
processes can improve, so that everyone can feel better included next
time.
Perhaps it would be nice if sufficiently-seconded GR amendments, or
accepted GR amendments, were announced on d-d-a, by the Secretary.
Kurt, how much work would that be for you ?
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
Re: more GRs to come
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 10:16:58AM +0200, Micha Lenk wrote: > > Finally, for future reference, it's normal for GRs to include options > > which are the opposite of the original proposal. If you care about the > > subject matter, participate in -vote. > > Right now we have been called for a vote, not for discussion. But I will try > to keep an eye on debian-vote in the future so that this won't happen again to > me. AS was noted several times in these late threads, the GR discussion was announced on d-d-a. The mail didn't say that you can participate in discussion, nor where can you do that, though. -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: more GRs to come
Hi Don, On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 02:33:34PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote on the debian-private list: > On Tue, 09 Aug 2016, Micha Lenk wrote in response to > > > [... someone writing on debian-private that the upcoming GR was announced > > > in advance on d-d-a (<20160710135250.ga15...@roeckx.be>) so that the > > > recent critics could have been discussed earlier and reflected in the GR > > > before the call for votes]: > > I really appreciate that the upcoming GRs were announced early when there > > was still plenty of time for discussion. But I have to confess that I did > > not anticipate that an upcoming GR advertised as "debian-private list will > > remain private" would turn into something that tries to achieve something > > almost as controversial as the opposite, i.e. a GR now titled > > "Declassifying debian-private". For this reason I did not bother weeks ago > > to check what's going on on the -vote mailing list. My real life simply > > seemed to require more attention at that time. > > > > Things like this can happen. Using the right to vote for "further > > discussion" and talking about it is then the only corrective measure > > available at this stage. Yes, such a timing is unfortunate, and I am sorry > > that this annoys the people who did care during the discussion period. > > But when it comes to policy, announcing the plan to do something, and > > afterwards asking in a GR to do the opposite is a simple way to foster real > > discussion. > > I proposed the amendment on 7/16, it was seconded by multiple DDs, then > accepted by Nicolas, and no one objected for two weeks. > > The amendment is almost exactly the same as the original text, with the > addition of a paragraph which makes it explicit that listmaster@ and/or > the DPL has the authority over list archives. This was the understanding > of Nicolas, and mine as well. Please, do not take my explanation why I did not engage earlier in the discussion on debian-vote as an offence against your amendment. My perception was based on what has been visible on the surface only. And it's only an explanation, not an excuse. > Finally, for future reference, it's normal for GRs to include options > which are the opposite of the original proposal. If you care about the > subject matter, participate in -vote. Right now we have been called for a vote, not for discussion. But I will try to keep an eye on debian-vote in the future so that this won't happen again to me. > > Maybe this was intended, but hey, then let's discuss this not on > > -private. > > You're being very rude to every DD who participated in the discussion on > -vote, the secretary, and myself by claiming that we intended to mislead > you. Sorry, this was ment to be a joke. I do not believe that you intended to mislead me, so please accept my apologies. > Please quote anything I have written in its entirety elsewhere. Done. Cheers, Micha
Re: Amendment to Proposed GR: Declassifying parts of -private of historical interest
Le mardi, 9 août 2016, 00.14:49 h CEST Nick Phillips a écrit : > To be clear - I do not believe that it would be acceptable for any message > to be made public without explicit approval of the author. A mere lack of > objection is not enough - however it does seem to me that this is a road > that some are keen to travel down. Please note that the current process, as decided by GR 2005/002 [0] is as follows (emphasis and ellipsis mine): > The team will *automatically* declassify and publish posts made to that list > that are three or more years old, with the following exceptions: > - the author (…) in messages being reviewed will be contacted, and allowed > between four and eight weeks to comment; > (…) > - requests by the author of a post for that post not to be published will be > honored; So you do not believe "it would be acceptable for any message to be made public without explicit approval of the author", but the project has _not_ decided to make past messages' declassification dependent on explicit approval; only on "4-8 weeks time, no objection raised". The current process _allows_ declassification of posts from unreachable, incapacitated or dead participants. -- Cheers, OdyX [0] https://www.debian.org/vote/2005/vote_002.en.html signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
