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

2016-08-10 Thread Nick Phillips
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: Amendment to Proposed GR: Declassifying parts of -private of historical interest

2016-08-10 Thread Didier 'OdyX' Raboud
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 - requests by the author of a post for that post not to be published will be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.


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

2016-08-09 Thread 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

2016-08-09 Thread 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

2016-08-09 Thread 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

2016-08-09 Thread 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: Amendment to Proposed GR: Declassifying parts of -private of historical interest

2016-08-09 Thread 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


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

2016-08-08 Thread Nick Phillips
On Mon, 2016-08-08 at 19:56 +0200, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 03:45:12PM +, Bart Martens wrote:
> > 
> > debian-private might make. You've proven that point today on
> > debian-private.
> Which is either a leak of information, an argument that such a
> message
> (if it exists) shouldn't have been on d-private in the first place or
> you providing disinformation to the public by implying there exists
> a message in a channel they can't access which doesn't exist in
> reality
> but nobody can repel as saying that such a message doesn't exist is
> leaking information by itself – all of which is in the end an
> argument
> for declassification of messages to remove the mystery surrounding
> it.
> 
> 
> 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. 

And it is "frightening" because it would be deliberate, and on the part
of the Project. For the Project to be morally/ethically lacking would
be far more disturbing than for an individual to be so.

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.


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

2016-08-08 Thread Micha Lenk
Hi everybody,

Am 08.08.2016 um 16:58 schrieb Don Armstrong:
> On Sun, 07 Aug 2016, Micha Lenk wrote:
>> That would establishing some kind of "ex post facto" law (which by the
>> way is prohibited in many constitutions for good reasons). I really
>> don't want to leave the decision whether past messages will be
>> affected or not up to the list masters.
> 
> This is why the GR text requires that at minimum DDs can object via GR.

That -- and also the listmasters or another DPL delegate deciding about
what/how to release publicly -- would be perfectly fine with me, but
only for any mails posted after the GR is accepted. I just don't want
this GR to change the rules of the past in the same go.

On a related note, I would also vote against any GR to "repeal the GR of
2005 and burry the idea of systematically declassifying debian-private",
as suggested by Holger Levsen. This is because despite my opposition to
the current GR, I do support the rationale behind the 2005 GR:

>  In accordance with principles of openness and transparency, Debian
>  will seek to declassify and publish posts of historical or ongoing
>  significance made to the Debian Private Mailing List

IMHO the currently proposed GR tries to solve too many issues at once.
Changing the rules for future mails on -private is one goal that is hard
enough to accomplish but certainly worth it. Cleaning up the backlog of
declassifying the -private archive is another one, but this does not
necessarily need to follow the same rules. So let's decide them
separately, I would say.

For this reason "further discussion" is correctly representing what I
want to vote for.

Best regards,
Micha



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

2016-08-08 Thread Russ Allbery
Colin Tuckley  writes:
> On 08/08/16 17:53, Don Armstrong wrote:

>> I envision that anyone who is delegated to do the declassification will
>> include something along those lines. But they are in the best position
>> to decide how to do that, if that ever happens.

> Indeed, and that means that a message written to debian-private back
> when all messages there were private *forever* might now be made public
> against the wishes of the author, since a GR may go against the authors
> wishes.

But that's always been the case, with or without this proposal, since a GR
is the highest decision-making mechanism we have.  Whether or not this GR
passes, I could propose a GR tomorrow that says "all of the debian-private
archives will immediately be released on the web," and if that passes, we
would release messages against their authors' wishes.

The backstop against this happening has always been the good-faith
assumption that Debian as a whole will not vote for such a GR.  I don't
think this proposal materially changes that.

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



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

2016-08-08 Thread David Kalnischkies
On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 03:45:12PM +, Bart Martens wrote:
> debian-private might make. You've proven that point today on debian-private.

Which is either a leak of information, an argument that such a message
(if it exists) shouldn't have been on d-private in the first place or
you providing disinformation to the public by implying there exists
a message in a channel they can't access which doesn't exist in reality
but nobody can repel as saying that such a message doesn't exist is
leaking information by itself – all of which is in the end an argument
for declassification of messages to remove the mystery surrounding it.


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?


> > > I hope that everyone fully realizes that before voting.
> > 
> > And I hope that, at one point, we as a project will learn to trust one 
> > another
> > and stop micro-managing people that actually want to get things done.
> 
> It's really not about trust and micro-management, but about "what" we want do
> decide with this GR.
> 
> For example, your two points quoted above could easily be included in a GR 
> text
> using these phrases:
> 
> - "The scope is limited to messages posted on debian-private before
>   debian-project was introduced." (And I have no strong opinion on whether 
> this
>   should be included.)
> - "The consent of the original author of the message on debian-private is
>   required before declassification." (I think this should have been in.)

No, it couldn't because these are part of the "how" which will probably
be a mile long IF anyone is ever attempting to do declassification.

For example: "How" are you going to handle mails from people who have by
now passed away – or an author who is currently that ill that (s)he has
a guardian appointed to handle matters for him/her. And how is that
consent even given, verified and recorded… you would need to define all
these things or otherwise someone will end up asking a medium who can
talk to the dead for proxying the consent OR we need a GR to repel yours
with a no-mediums GR because the process outlined in your GR requires
consent, but doesn't forbid (specific) proxies giving it.

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) we can adept as we go[0] with input from anyone
arriving eventually at a process which can a) work and b) nobody objects
to rather than after twenty-something GRs at a process which might work
and nobody objects to *enough* to have yet another GR about it.


[0] I think, but that is just personal opinion and guessing, to have
a realistic stab at declassifying at the very least the first few if not
all ever attempted declassifications will be around a single thread done
by human beings and the process hence tailored to the real needs of the
thread rather than a giant all-knowing fully-automated AI doing it for
all threads in a single pass, which is why the previous GR didn't work,
but just IMHO.


Besides, we talk about d-private. Nobody can honestly believe that an
unencrypted mail sent to ~1000 mail addresses is in any sense of the
word a secret that the public doesn't and will never know. The only
thing it real is: It is non-public archived (on Debian infrastructure…
I would actually be surprised if it couldn't be found somewhere else if
you look really hard for it as if it were really as private as suggested
it would be Debians version of revenge porn to publish it) and that only
because listmasters have chosen to make it so.

That isn't to say that anything posted there should be automatically
public – thinking mostly about VAC messages, expulsions or generic
issues of the day like DDs forming a fellowship (with a ring), forking,
resigning or any other real-world-leaks-into-my-Debian-time announcement
with the appropriated responses – but the idea that it is a safe haven
you can say anything on without risking that it will ever become public
knowledge is at the very least equally wrong. aka: d-private is Debians
archived online version of water-cooler talk. Sometimes, historically
significant things happen around the water-cooler, but most of the time…


Best regards

David Kalnischkies

"Three may keep a Secret, if two of them are dead."
 -- Benjamin Franklin


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


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

2016-08-08 Thread Colin Tuckley
On 08/08/16 17:53, Don Armstrong wrote:

> I envision that anyone who is delegated to do the declassification will
> include something along those lines. But they are in the best position
> to decide how to do that, if that ever happens.

Indeed, and that means that a message written to debian-private back
when all messages there were private *forever* might now be made public
against the wishes of the author, since a GR may go against the authors
wishes.

Colin

-- 
Colin Tuckley| +44(0)1223 830814 |  PGP/GnuPG Key Id
Debian Developer | +44(0)7799 143369 | 0xFA0C410738C9D903



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

2016-08-08 Thread Don Armstrong
On Mon, 08 Aug 2016, Bart Martens wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 08, 2016 at 09:58:45AM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > On Sun, 07 Aug 2016, Micha Lenk wrote:
> > > That would establishing some kind of "ex post facto" law (which by the
> > > way is prohibited in many constitutions for good reasons). I really
> > > don't want to leave the decision whether past messages will be
> > > affected or not up to the list masters.
> > 
> > This is why the GR text requires that at minimum DDs can object via GR.
> 
> I don't see how that covers Micha's concern.

It makes it so that the decision whether a particular set of messages or
quotes is released publicly isn't solely up to listmaster@ or another
DPL delegate. At minimum, DDs can object by GR.

> In fact there is no way of preventing declassification since the
> outcome of a GR is unknown in advance.

I don't follow you here; that a GR could potentially go against
you doesn't mean that the outcome of the GR is meaningless.

> I think it's plain wrong that we're now about to give a permission for
> declassifying debian-private possibly against the authors' will. GR
> 2005/vote_002 did include "requests by the author of a post for that
> post not to be published will be honored" while 2016/vote_002 does not
> include any means for the original authors to prevent
> declassification.

I envision that anyone who is delegated to do the declassification will
include something along those lines. But they are in the best position
to decide how to do that, if that ever happens.

-- 
Don Armstrong  https://www.donarmstrong.com

America was far better suited to be the World's Movie Star. The
world's tequila-addled pro-league bowler. The world's acerbic bi-polar
stand-up comedian. Anything but a somber and tedious nation of
socially responsible centurions.
 -- Bruce Sterling, _Distraction_ p122



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

2016-08-08 Thread Bart Martens
On Mon, Aug 08, 2016 at 09:58:45AM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Aug 2016, Micha Lenk wrote:
> > That would establishing some kind of "ex post facto" law (which by the
> > way is prohibited in many constitutions for good reasons). I really
> > don't want to leave the decision whether past messages will be
> > affected or not up to the list masters.
> 
> This is why the GR text requires that at minimum DDs can object via GR.

I don't see how that covers Micha's concern.

DDs can always initiate a GR, so the text in GR 2016/vote_002 "which at minimum
provides sufficient time and opportunity for Debian Developers to object by GR
prior to declassification" only gives the impression that one can prevent
declassification. In fact there is no way of preventing declassification since
the outcome of a GR is unknown in advance.

I think it's plain wrong that we're now about to give a permission for
declassifying debian-private possibly against the authors' will. GR
2005/vote_002 did include "requests by the author of a post for that post not
to be published will be honored" while 2016/vote_002 does not include any means
for the original authors to prevent declassification.

Regards,

Bart Martens



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

2016-08-08 Thread Don Armstrong
On Sun, 07 Aug 2016, Micha Lenk wrote:
> That would establishing some kind of "ex post facto" law (which by the
> way is prohibited in many constitutions for good reasons). I really
> don't want to leave the decision whether past messages will be
> affected or not up to the list masters.

This is why the GR text requires that at minimum DDs can object via GR.

-- 
Don Armstrong  https://www.donarmstrong.com

Your absence has gone through me
Like thread through a needle.
Everything I do is stitched with its color.
 -- W. S. Merwin "Poetry in Motion" p107



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

2016-08-08 Thread Ian Jackson
Bart Martens writes ("Re: Amendment to Proposed GR: Declassifying parts of 
-private of historical interest"):
> For example, your two points quoted above could easily be included
> in a GR text using these phrases:
> 
> - "The scope is limited to messages posted on debian-private before
>   debian-project was introduced." (And I have no strong opinion on
>   whether this should be included.)
> 
> - "The consent of the original author of the message on debian-private is
>   required before declassification." (I think this should have been in.)

It is a shame that you didn't raise these concerns during the
extensive discussion phase, during which the wording of this proposal
was carefully considered by various people, and modified.  Even if you
hadn't got consensus for your suggested restrictions, they could have
been on the ballot, if you had enough supporters.

Personally I don't read the current GR text as an authorisation or
encouragement for listmasters to go and do something nonconsensual and
inappropriate with old messages.

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

2016-08-07 Thread Bart Martens
On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 04:53:09PM +0200, Nicolas Dandrimont wrote:
> * Bart Martens  [2016-08-07 13:58:46 +]:
> 
> > Hi Nicolas,
> 
> Hi,
> 
> > On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 02:54:36PM +0200, Nicolas Dandrimont wrote:
> > > In my opinion the only point in this General Resolution is allowing the
> > > declassification of the early years of -private, where the mailing list 
> > > was
> > > used as a "project" mailing list rather than for discussing actually 
> > > sensitive
> > > matters.
> > 
> > Then the text of GR 2016/vote_002 should have reflected that.
> >
> > > I expect a sensible declassification process to allow the original 
> > > authors to
> > > decide on whether their messages should be declassified or not, if an 
> > > explicit
> > > disclaimer has not been put in the message.
> > 
> > Then the text of GR 2016/vote_002 should have reflected that.
> 
> Encoding the process down to the nitty gritty details

Don't get me wrong, I agree with your two points quoted above. I just think
that these are not just "nitty gritty details of the process" but elements that
make it a different GR.

> is what discouraged
> people to actually do the work in the first place. I'm glad that Don's
> amendment doesn't do that, and, who knows, it might even encourage people to
> get things done, finally.

I think we agree that GR texts should be formulated high-level (the "what"
part), allowing the people doing the actual work plenty room on the "how" part.

> > I have now voted against GR 2016/vote_002 because it allows 
> > declassification of
> > anything ever posted on debian-private against the authors' will.
> 
> But do we really think that's what is going to happen? Can't we trust the
> listmasters to respect the privacy that they have upheld for the last 10+
> years?
> 
> Why is it so hard to trust the people who actually want to do the work to
> come up with a sensible process?

I'm not questioning the trust that the listmasters deserve. I'm questioning the
scope of this GR. The listmasters are not malicious people but they may make
different privacy assessments than the original authors of messages on
debian-private might make. You've proven that point today on debian-private.

> 
> > I hope that everyone fully realizes that before voting.
> 
> And I hope that, at one point, we as a project will learn to trust one another
> and stop micro-managing people that actually want to get things done.

It's really not about trust and micro-management, but about "what" we want do
decide with this GR.

For example, your two points quoted above could easily be included in a GR text
using these phrases:

- "The scope is limited to messages posted on debian-private before
  debian-project was introduced." (And I have no strong opinion on whether this
  should be included.)
- "The consent of the original author of the message on debian-private is
  required before declassification." (I think this should have been in.)

Regards,

Bart Martens



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

2016-08-07 Thread Nicolas Dandrimont
* Bart Martens  [2016-08-07 13:58:46 +]:

> Hi Nicolas,

Hi,

> On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 02:54:36PM +0200, Nicolas Dandrimont wrote:
> > In my opinion the only point in this General Resolution is allowing the
> > declassification of the early years of -private, where the mailing list was
> > used as a "project" mailing list rather than for discussing actually 
> > sensitive
> > matters.
> 
> Then the text of GR 2016/vote_002 should have reflected that.
>
> > I expect a sensible declassification process to allow the original authors 
> > to
> > decide on whether their messages should be declassified or not, if an 
> > explicit
> > disclaimer has not been put in the message.
> 
> Then the text of GR 2016/vote_002 should have reflected that.

Encoding the process down to the nitty gritty details is what discouraged
people to actually do the work in the first place. I'm glad that Don's
amendment doesn't do that, and, who knows, it might even encourage people to
get things done, finally.

> I have now voted against GR 2016/vote_002 because it allows declassification 
> of
> anything ever posted on debian-private against the authors' will.

But do we really think that's what is going to happen? Can't we trust the
listmasters to respect the privacy that they have upheld for the last 10+
years?

Why is it so hard to trust the people who actually want to do the work to
come up with a sensible process?

> I hope that everyone fully realizes that before voting.

And I hope that, at one point, we as a project will learn to trust one another
and stop micro-managing people that actually want to get things done.

Bye,
-- 
Nicolas Dandrimont


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


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

2016-08-07 Thread Bart Martens
Hi Nicolas,

On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 02:54:36PM +0200, Nicolas Dandrimont wrote:
> In my opinion the only point in this General Resolution is allowing the
> declassification of the early years of -private, where the mailing list was
> used as a "project" mailing list rather than for discussing actually sensitive
> matters.

Then the text of GR 2016/vote_002 should have reflected that.

> I expect a sensible declassification process to allow the original authors to
> decide on whether their messages should be declassified or not, if an explicit
> disclaimer has not been put in the message.

Then the text of GR 2016/vote_002 should have reflected that.

I have now voted against GR 2016/vote_002 because it allows declassification of
anything ever posted on debian-private against the authors' will. I hope that
everyone fully realizes that before voting.

Regards,

Bart Martens



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

2016-08-07 Thread Nicolas Dandrimont
* Micha Lenk  [2016-08-07 12:59:05 +0200]:

> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> sorry for joining the discussion late. I just realized when reading
> the call for votes that I should have joined the discussion earlier.

Definitely.

> Am 16.07.2016 um 23:06 schrieb Julien Cristau:
> > On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 13:17:24 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > 
> >> 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 provides sufficient
> >> opportunity for Debian Developers to object by GR prior to
> >> declassification.
> >> 
> > I'm not sure I like restricting the opportunity to object to
> > Debian Developers.  Anything of historical interest is likely to
> > involve people who are no longer DDs at the time publication is
> > considered, and they should probably have a say.
> 
> What I am missing in this section is a clarification whether this
> affects also past messages to -private or only those messages after
> this GR has passed and the change is reflected in all the
> documentation and is properly announced to all DDs.
> 
> While I am fine with the latter, I oppose this GR affecting any
> messages that have been sent in the past. That would establishing some
> kind of "ex post facto" law (which by the way is prohibited in many
> constitutions for good reasons). I really don't want to leave the
> decision whether past messages will be affected or not up to the list
> masters. For this reason I will vote "Further Discussion".

In my opinion the only point in this General Resolution is allowing the
declassification of the early years of -private, where the mailing list was
used as a "project" mailing list rather than for discussing actually sensitive
matters. I find that we've gotten better at moving threads of interest to public
forums over time.

I expect a sensible declassification process to allow the original authors to
decide on whether their messages should be declassified or not, if an explicit
disclaimer has not been put in the message.

I also expect the declassification team to present and hash out the process in
public before going forward with it, but without having the burden of doing a
GR for every little tweak they do.

The old GR mandated a process so contrived that the only thing it achieved was
discouraging anyone from ever implementing it, while also barring people from
ever extracting the really interesting content. I trust the listmasters or
their chosen declassification team to come up with a workable process of their
liking, and to apply good judgement in unraveling historically interesting
threads while upholding the privacy of what needs to be kept private.

Cheers,
-- 
Nicolas Dandrimont

BOFH excuse #125:
we just switched to Sprint.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


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

2016-08-07 Thread Micha Lenk
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

Hi all,

sorry for joining the discussion late. I just realized when reading
the call for votes that I should have joined the discussion earlier.

Am 16.07.2016 um 23:06 schrieb Julien Cristau:
> On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 13:17:24 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> 
>> 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 provides sufficient
>> opportunity for Debian Developers to object by GR prior to
>> declassification.
>> 
> I'm not sure I like restricting the opportunity to object to
> Debian Developers.  Anything of historical interest is likely to
> involve people who are no longer DDs at the time publication is
> considered, and they should probably have a say.

What I am missing in this section is a clarification whether this
affects also past messages to -private or only those messages after
this GR has passed and the change is reflected in all the
documentation and is properly announced to all DDs.

While I am fine with the latter, I oppose this GR affecting any
messages that have been sent in the past. That would establishing some
kind of "ex post facto" law (which by the way is prohibited in many
constitutions for good reasons). I really don't want to leave the
decision whether past messages will be affected or not up to the list
masters. For this reason I will vote "Further Discussion".

Best regards,
Micha
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2
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=qcqj
-END PGP SIGNATURE-



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

2016-07-23 Thread Kurt Roeckx
On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 12:13:38PM +0200, Nicolas Dandrimont wrote:
> * Don Armstrong  [2016-07-17 17:56:12 -0700]:
> 
> > In response to the helpful comments, I've modified my proposed amendment
> > to Nicolas's resolution by adding "at minimum", and now propose the
> > following amendment:
> > 
> > === BEGIN GR TEXT ===
> > 
> > Title: Declassifying parts of -private of historical interest
> > 
> > 1. The 2005 General Resolution titled "Declassification of debian-private
> >list archives" is repealed.
> > 
> > 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 time and
> >opportunity for Debian Developers to object by GR prior to
> >declassification.
> > 
> > 3. In keeping with paragraph 3 of the Debian Social Contract, Debian
> >Developers are strongly encouraged to use the debian-private mailing
> >list only for discussions that should not be disclosed.
> > 
> > === END GR TEXT ===
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I've had feedback from people who would rather keep -private@ private forever.
> However, I now do believe that this amendment is just a clarification of the
> intent of my original proposal.
> 
> I therefore accept this amendment under paragraph A.1.2 of our constitution.
> 
> Seconds who think otherwise should feel free to submit another amendment.

So I didn't see anybody object to this, and this is now the only
proposal.  The vote page has been modified for this.


Kurt



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

2016-07-19 Thread Nicolas Dandrimont
* Don Armstrong  [2016-07-17 17:56:12 -0700]:

> In response to the helpful comments, I've modified my proposed amendment
> to Nicolas's resolution by adding "at minimum", and now propose the
> following amendment:
> 
> === BEGIN GR TEXT ===
> 
> Title: Declassifying parts of -private of historical interest
> 
> 1. The 2005 General Resolution titled "Declassification of debian-private
>list archives" is repealed.
> 
> 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 time and
>opportunity for Debian Developers to object by GR prior to
>declassification.
> 
> 3. In keeping with paragraph 3 of the Debian Social Contract, Debian
>Developers are strongly encouraged to use the debian-private mailing
>list only for discussions that should not be disclosed.
> 
> === END GR TEXT ===

Hi,

I've had feedback from people who would rather keep -private@ private forever.
However, I now do believe that this amendment is just a clarification of the
intent of my original proposal.

I therefore accept this amendment under paragraph A.1.2 of our constitution.

Seconds who think otherwise should feel free to submit another amendment.

Thanks Don,
-- 
Nicolas Dandrimont

BOFH excuse #278:
The Dilithium Crystals need to be rotated.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


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

2016-07-18 Thread Don Armstrong
On Mon, 18 Jul 2016, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 05:56:12PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > In response to the helpful comments, I've modified my proposed amendment
> > to Nicolas's resolution by adding "at minimum", and now propose the
> > following amendment:

[...]

> So this amendment has been accepted, and we currently have 2
> options.

Thanks, Kurt!

Nicolas: just for the avoidance of doubt, feel free to accept (or not
accept) this amendment as you see fit. [If any of the seconders of the
original proposal object to this amendment, now would also be a
reasonable time to do so.]

-- 
Don Armstrong  https://www.donarmstrong.com

Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing, after they
have exhausted all other possibilities.
 -- W. Churchill



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

2016-07-18 Thread Kurt Roeckx
On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 05:56:12PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> In response to the helpful comments, I've modified my proposed amendment
> to Nicolas's resolution by adding "at minimum", and now propose the
> following amendment:
> 
> === BEGIN GR TEXT ===
> 
> Title: Declassifying parts of -private of historical interest
> 
> 1. The 2005 General Resolution titled "Declassification of debian-private
>list archives" is repealed.
> 
> 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 time and
>opportunity for Debian Developers to object by GR prior to
>declassification.
> 
> 3. In keeping with paragraph 3 of the Debian Social Contract, Debian
>Developers are strongly encouraged to use the debian-private mailing
>list only for discussions that should not be disclosed.
> 
> === END GR TEXT ===

So this amendment has been accepted, and we currently have 2
options.


Kurt



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

2016-07-18 Thread Ian Jackson
Jonathan Dowland writes ("Re: Amendment to Proposed GR: Declassifying parts of 
-private of historical interest"):
> Although this part of the text originates from the original GR text and
> not Don's amendment, my comment applies as much to the amended text so
> I'm threading it here:
> 
> On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 05:56:12PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > 3. In keeping with paragraph 3 of the Debian Social Contract, Debian
> >Developers are strongly encouraged to use the debian-private mailing
> >list only for discussions that should not be disclosed.
> 
> One issue I have is this amounts to a form of gagging order.

I think it's just a restatement of the well-established idea that
discussions that don't need the privacy of -private should not be held
behind closed doors.

> Have we had an exploration of why people sometimes choose to
> converse on -private, rather than elsewhere? Such analysis (and
> results therefore) would of course have to be on -private too, but I
> put forth the following theory for *some* people choosing to, which
> I have felt myself: some discussions on our public lists have been
> horribly toxic and attract participants who are not otherwise
> constructive parts of our community.

Quite so.  IMO that is a good reason to use -private for such a
discussion.

>  We are all only human and sometimes we don't have the emotional
> energy to deal with that.  -private is, even if it isn't designed to
> be, a virtual safe space.

I don't think there is any need to apologise or feel guilty about such
a choice.

Ian.



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

2016-07-18 Thread Jonathan Dowland
Although this part of the text originates from the original GR text and
not Don's amendment, my comment applies as much to the amended text so
I'm threading it here:

On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 05:56:12PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> 3. In keeping with paragraph 3 of the Debian Social Contract, Debian
>Developers are strongly encouraged to use the debian-private mailing
>list only for discussions that should not be disclosed.

One issue I have is this amounts to a form of gagging order. Have we had
an exploration of why people sometimes choose to converse on -private,
rather than elsewhere? Such analysis (and results therefore) would of
course have to be on -private too, but I put forth the following theory
for *some* people choosing to, which I have felt myself: some discussions
on our public lists have been horribly toxic and attract participants who
are not otherwise constructive parts of our community. We are all only
human and sometimes we don't have the emotional energy to deal with that.
-private is, even if it isn't designed to be, a virtual safe space.


-- 
Jonathan Dowland


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


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

2016-07-18 Thread Ian Jackson
Don Armstrong writes ("Amendment to Proposed GR: Declassifying parts of 
-private of historical interest"):
> In response to the helpful comments, I've modified my proposed amendment
> to Nicolas's resolution by adding "at minimum", and now propose the
> following amendment:
> 
> === BEGIN GR TEXT ===

I like this text.  I am not seconding it because if Nicolas does not
choose to formally accept it, I don't think it is necessary to have
this option as well as Nicolas's on the ballot.

However, Nicolas: please accept this amendment.[1]
It is an improvement.

Regards,
Ian.

[1] As the proposer of the original, you can do this without waiting
for Don's amendment to get seconds.  A.1(1).



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

2016-07-18 Thread martin f krafft
also sprach Don Armstrong  [2016-07-18 02:56 +0200]:
> === BEGIN GR TEXT ===
> 
> Title: Declassifying parts of -private of historical interest
> 
> 1. The 2005 General Resolution titled "Declassification of debian-private
>list archives" is repealed.
> 
> 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 time and
>opportunity for Debian Developers to object by GR prior to
>declassification.
> 
> 3. In keeping with paragraph 3 of the Debian Social Contract, Debian
>Developers are strongly encouraged to use the debian-private mailing
>list only for discussions that should not be disclosed.
> 
> === END GR TEXT ===

Seconded.

-- 
 .''`.   martin f. krafft  @martinkrafft
: :'  :  proud Debian developer
`. `'`   http://people.debian.org/~madduck
  `-  Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems
 
"the search for the perfect martini is a fraud. the perfect martini
 is a belt of gin from the bottle; anything else is the decadent
 trappings of civilization."
-- t. k.


digital_signature_gpg.asc
Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/sig-policy/999bbcc4/current)


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

2016-07-18 Thread Ana Guerrero Lopez
On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 05:56:12PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> 
> === BEGIN GR TEXT ===
> 
> Title: Declassifying parts of -private of historical interest
> 
> 1. The 2005 General Resolution titled "Declassification of debian-private
>list archives" is repealed.
> 
> 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 time and
>opportunity for Debian Developers to object by GR prior to
>declassification.
> 
> 3. In keeping with paragraph 3 of the Debian Social Contract, Debian
>Developers are strongly encouraged to use the debian-private mailing
>list only for discussions that should not be disclosed.
> 
> === END GR TEXT ===

Seconded.




signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


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

2016-07-18 Thread Francesca Ciceri
On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 05:56:12PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> === BEGIN GR TEXT ===
> 
> Title: Declassifying parts of -private of historical interest
> 
> 1. The 2005 General Resolution titled "Declassification of debian-private
>list archives" is repealed.
> 
> 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 time and
>opportunity for Debian Developers to object by GR prior to
>declassification.
> 
> 3. In keeping with paragraph 3 of the Debian Social Contract, Debian
>Developers are strongly encouraged to use the debian-private mailing
>list only for discussions that should not be disclosed.
> 
> === END GR TEXT ===

Seconded.

-- 
"Nessuna conquista è per sempre. C'è sempre qualcuno che è
interessato a toglierla. Per cui resistere non è solo un 
dovere, ma una necessità dei giovani, altrimenti non si 
va avanti!"
Maria Cervi


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


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

2016-07-18 Thread Aníbal Monsalve Salazar
On Sun, 2016-07-17 17:56:12 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> === BEGIN GR TEXT ===
> 
> Title: Declassifying parts of -private of historical interest
> 
> 1. The 2005 General Resolution titled "Declassification of debian-private
>list archives" is repealed.
> 
> 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 time and
>opportunity for Debian Developers to object by GR prior to
>declassification.
> 
> 3. In keeping with paragraph 3 of the Debian Social Contract, Debian
>Developers are strongly encouraged to use the debian-private mailing
>list only for discussions that should not be disclosed.
> 
> === END GR TEXT ===

Seconded.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


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

2016-07-18 Thread Jakub Wilk

* Don Armstrong , 2016-07-17, 17:56:

=== BEGIN GR TEXT ===

Title: Declassifying parts of -private of historical interest

1. The 2005 General Resolution titled "Declassification of 
debian-private list archives" is repealed.


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 time and 
opportunity for Debian Developers to object by GR prior to 
declassification.


3. In keeping with paragraph 3 of the Debian Social Contract, Debian 
Developers are strongly encouraged to use the debian-private mailing 
list only for discussions that should not be disclosed.


=== END GR TEXT ===


Seconded!

--
Jakub Wilk


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


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

2016-07-18 Thread Stefano Zacchiroli
Seconded.

On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 05:56:12PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> === BEGIN GR TEXT ===
> 
> Title: Declassifying parts of -private of historical interest
> 
> 1. The 2005 General Resolution titled "Declassification of debian-private
>list archives" is repealed.
> 
> 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 time and
>opportunity for Debian Developers to object by GR prior to
>declassification.
> 
> 3. In keeping with paragraph 3 of the Debian Social Contract, Debian
>Developers are strongly encouraged to use the debian-private mailing
>list only for discussions that should not be disclosed.
> 
> === END GR TEXT ===

-- 
Stefano Zacchiroli  . . . . . . .  z...@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o
Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o
Former Debian Project Leader . . . . . @zacchiro . . . . o o o . . . o .
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


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

2016-07-18 Thread Lars Wirzenius
Seconded.

On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 05:56:12PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> In response to the helpful comments, I've modified my proposed amendment
> to Nicolas's resolution by adding "at minimum", and now propose the
> following amendment:
> 
> === BEGIN GR TEXT ===
> 
> Title: Declassifying parts of -private of historical interest
> 
> 1. The 2005 General Resolution titled "Declassification of debian-private
>list archives" is repealed.
> 
> 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 time and
>opportunity for Debian Developers to object by GR prior to
>declassification.
> 
> 3. In keeping with paragraph 3 of the Debian Social Contract, Debian
>Developers are strongly encouraged to use the debian-private mailing
>list only for discussions that should not be disclosed.
> 
> === END GR TEXT ===
> 
> -- 
> Don Armstrong  https://www.donarmstrong.com
> 
> There are two types of people in this world, good and bad. The good
> sleep better, but the bad seem to enjoy the waking hours much more.  
>  -- Woody Allen



-- 
Schrödinger's backup hypothesis: the condition of any backup is
undefined until a restore is attempted. -- andrewsh


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


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

2016-07-17 Thread Don Armstrong
In response to the helpful comments, I've modified my proposed amendment
to Nicolas's resolution by adding "at minimum", and now propose the
following amendment:

=== BEGIN GR TEXT ===

Title: Declassifying parts of -private of historical interest

1. The 2005 General Resolution titled "Declassification of debian-private
   list archives" is repealed.

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 time and
   opportunity for Debian Developers to object by GR prior to
   declassification.

3. In keeping with paragraph 3 of the Debian Social Contract, Debian
   Developers are strongly encouraged to use the debian-private mailing
   list only for discussions that should not be disclosed.

=== END GR TEXT ===

-- 
Don Armstrong  https://www.donarmstrong.com

There are two types of people in this world, good and bad. The good
sleep better, but the bad seem to enjoy the waking hours much more.  
 -- Woody Allen


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


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

2016-07-17 Thread Stefano Zacchiroli
On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 04:08:23PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> 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.

That occurred to me too, but only after following-up here. Given the
comments received though, I guess it's worth being more explicit.

> 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?

Upon reflection, I'd be happy to sponsor this version.

I'm convinced that votes on individual declassifications would be
awkward, but they're on the table anyhow no matter what this GR says.
The net effect of specifying "by GR" here is just ruling out processes
that do not give enough time to object, and that's a good thing.

Cheers.
-- 
Stefano Zacchiroli  . . . . . . .  z...@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o
Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o
Former Debian Project Leader . . . . . @zacchiro . . . . o o o . . . o .
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


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

2016-07-16 Thread Don Armstrong
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



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

2016-07-16 Thread Russ Allbery
Stefano Zacchiroli  writes:
> On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 10:52:00PM +0200, 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.

> Oh, I think there might be an ambiguity here. I am interpreting Don's
> text as saying that DDs should be able to object *to the process* via a
> GR; whereas Nicolas (and possibly Iain) seem to be interpreting it as
> saying that DDs should be able to object to individual declassification
> actions via a GR.

To datapoint, I interpreted it as the latter as well.

With the clarification that Don intended the former, I would second this.

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



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

2016-07-16 Thread Iain Lane
On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 10:57:15PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 09:44:59PM +0100, Iain Lane wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 01:17:24PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > 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 provides sufficient opportunity for
> > >Debian Developers to object by GR prior to declassification.
> >  ^
> > 
> > This barrier is too high, IMO. I would prefer it if "by GR" were
> > removed, so that the listmasters can come up with their own procedure
> > with whatever objection method they think is appropriate.
> > 
> > (GRs are, of course, always going to be on the table regardless.)
> 
> Right, so I'm not sure I understand your objection here. The only
> process I can imagine that would *not* provide "sufficient opportunity"
> as proposed by Don, is clicking a button that would immediately make all
> the archives public, without any warning whatsoever. Any process that is
> announced even just a few days before being enacted would certainly
> match my barrier for "sufficient opportunity".
> 
> So can you maybe clarify your worry here?  (I'm asking because I'm
> potentially interested in sponsoring Don's amendment.)

Sure. Sorry if this is a bit like rules lawyering - I didn't anticipate
your reply. :)

The words "by GR prior to declassification" say, to me, that listmasters
are only allowed to come up with a procedure that allows DDs to object
by a GR, and not in some other way.

From what you're saying, I think you read it as saying that the
procedure *itself* is the thing which is presented and may be overturned
by a GR. I think that's reasonable - although I would hope that
discussion short of a GR would be enough.

Given your interpretation, and without getting too pedantic, maybe
something like the following is clearer (or maybe not).

  2. Debian listmasters and/or other individuals delegated by the DPL to
 do so are authorized to declassify excerpts of -private of
 historical interest. Before any declassification takes place, the
 procedure for declassifying posts must be published. This procedure
 must set out how affected individuals can object to specific
 declassifications, and it must be presented to the project with
 sufficient opportunity for discussion before any declassifications
 take place.

Cheers,

-- 
Iain Lane  [ i...@orangesquash.org.uk ]
Debian Developer   [ la...@debian.org ]
Ubuntu Developer   [ la...@ubuntu.com ]


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


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

2016-07-16 Thread Julien Cristau
On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 13:17:24 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:

> 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 provides sufficient opportunity for
>Debian Developers to object by GR prior to declassification.
> 
I'm not sure I like restricting the opportunity to object to Debian
Developers.  Anything of historical interest is likely to involve people
who are no longer DDs at the time publication is considered, and they
should probably have a say.

Cheers,
Julien



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

2016-07-16 Thread Stefano Zacchiroli
On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 10:52:00PM +0200, 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.

Oh, I think there might be an ambiguity here. I am interpreting Don's
text as saying that DDs should be able to object *to the process* via a
GR; whereas Nicolas (and possibly Iain) seem to be interpreting it as
saying that DDs should be able to object to individual declassification
actions via a GR.

I agree the latter would be very weird, also because it will potentially
result in public votes about private messages that are not disclosed in
the call for votes and the like.

Can you clarify which is which Don?

Cheers.
-- 
Stefano Zacchiroli  . . . . . . .  z...@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o
Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o
Former Debian Project Leader . . . . . @zacchiro . . . . o o o . . . o .
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


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

2016-07-16 Thread Stefano Zacchiroli
On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 09:44:59PM +0100, Iain Lane wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 01:17:24PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > 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 provides sufficient opportunity for
> >Debian Developers to object by GR prior to declassification.
>  ^
> 
> This barrier is too high, IMO. I would prefer it if "by GR" were
> removed, so that the listmasters can come up with their own procedure
> with whatever objection method they think is appropriate.
> 
> (GRs are, of course, always going to be on the table regardless.)

Right, so I'm not sure I understand your objection here. The only
process I can imagine that would *not* provide "sufficient opportunity"
as proposed by Don, is clicking a button that would immediately make all
the archives public, without any warning whatsoever. Any process that is
announced even just a few days before being enacted would certainly
match my barrier for "sufficient opportunity".

So can you maybe clarify your worry here?  (I'm asking because I'm
potentially interested in sponsoring Don's amendment.)

Many thanks in advance,
Cheers.
-- 
Stefano Zacchiroli  . . . . . . .  z...@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o
Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o
Former Debian Project Leader . . . . . @zacchiro . . . . o o o . . . o .
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


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

2016-07-16 Thread Nicolas Dandrimont
Hi Don,

Thanks for your amendment.

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.

* Don Armstrong  [2016-07-16 13:17:24 -0700]:

> I hereby propose the following amendment to the currently proposed GR.
> 
> === BEGIN GR TEXT ===
> 
> Title: Declassifying parts of -private of historical interest
> 
> 1. The 2005 General Resolution titled "Declassification of debian-private
>list archives" is repealed.
> 
> 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 provides sufficient opportunity for
>Debian Developers to object by GR prior to declassification.
 ^
I don't think those words are necessary.

> 3. In keeping with paragraph 3 of the Debian Social Contract, Debian
>Developers are strongly encouraged to use the debian-private mailing
>list only for discussions that should not be disclosed.
> 
> === END GR TEXT ===

Thanks for clarifying,
-- 
Nicolas Dandrimont

BOFH excuse #449:
greenpeace free'd the mallocs


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


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

2016-07-16 Thread Iain Lane
On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 01:17:24PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> 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 provides sufficient opportunity for
>Debian Developers to object by GR prior to declassification.
 ^

This barrier is too high, IMO. I would prefer it if "by GR" were
removed, so that the listmasters can come up with their own procedure
with whatever objection method they think is appropriate.

(GRs are, of course, always going to be on the table regardless.)

-- 
Iain Lane  [ i...@orangesquash.org.uk ]
Debian Developer   [ la...@debian.org ]
Ubuntu Developer   [ la...@ubuntu.com ]


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


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

2016-07-16 Thread Don Armstrong
I hereby propose the following amendment to the currently proposed GR.

=== BEGIN GR TEXT ===

Title: Declassifying parts of -private of historical interest

1. The 2005 General Resolution titled "Declassification of debian-private
   list archives" is repealed.

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 provides sufficient opportunity for
   Debian Developers to object by GR prior to declassification.

3. In keeping with paragraph 3 of the Debian Social Contract, Debian
   Developers are strongly encouraged to use the debian-private mailing
   list only for discussions that should not be disclosed.

=== END GR TEXT ===

-- 
Don Armstrong  https://www.donarmstrong.com

Our days are precious, but we gladly see them going
If in their place we find a thing more precious growing
A rare, exotic plant, our gardener's heart delighting
A child whom we are teaching, a booklet we are writing
 -- Frederick Rükert _Wisdom of the Brahmans_ 
 [Hermann Hesse _Glass Bead Game_]


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature