Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private

[Ian Jackson]

Jonathan Dowland writes ("Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge that the debian-private 
list will remain private"):
> However, this approach for me is less acceptable if there is a diminished
> chance of such "flame-retardant" discussions from ever being declassified,
> which I think would be the case after this GR passes.

I can see why that premise would lead you to that conclusion.

> The dissonance might simply be I perceive the current state of affairs to be
> that we might actually declassify some of -private, some day,

Empirically speaking that is surely a forlorn hope.

> and the GR (original text at least) makes it less so. (I even had
> "join the declassification effort" on my long-term TODO list, but I
> have done precicely nothing). Adding the riders about a better
> process soothes this a bit.

I think that Don's wording clearly opens the door to other kinds of
declassification efforts, or efforts to change the way -private works.

Ian.

Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private

[Jonathan Dowland]

Hi Ian,

On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 01:17:20PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Thanks for your message. 

You're welcome, thanks.

> Don's proposed resolution clearly does not close the door.  It makes
> it possible for someone who is interested in declassification to try
> to develop a workable process, consult listmaster and the project, and
> to actually declassify things.  If there is in fact anyone who wants
> to do this.
> 
> (I don't think Nicolas's version closes the door either but the
> clarification of intent in Don's amendment is useful.)

I do prefer Don's amendment on this particular point.

> I don't understand your analogies.

They're a bit histronic, for which I apologise.

> If you think that -private is a breach of our principle of openness,
> then the corresponding response would be to abolish it.  Or perhaps
> implement some kind of restrictions on its (ab)use (beyond mere social
> convention, which we already have and which we do indeed occasionally
> breach).

This is perhaps where I will appear most contradictory. I agree that in
the pure principle of openness, we shouldn't have a -private. However, we
need one for pragmatic reasons. We should therefore avoid using it as
much as we can. I think we're all in agreement with this so far.

The "safe space" argument I've just made in another thread reply is why
I get particularly uncomfortable about how we phrase that discouragement.
I think, if someone feels that they can't take the heat for posting
something on e.g. -devel at a particular given moment, then I would
rather permit them to make the choice to post on -private (that is, weighing
up the openness argument versus the flamebait problem on a per-post basis
and for themselves) and have their contribution than not have it at all.

However, this approach for me is less acceptable if there is a diminished
chance of such "flame-retardant" discussions from ever being declassified,
which I think would be the case after this GR passes.

The dissonance might simply be I perceive the current state of affairs to be
that we might actually declassify some of -private, some day, and the GR
(original text at least) makes it less so. (I even had "join the
declassification effort" on my long-term TODO list, but I have done precicely
nothing). Adding the riders about a better process soothes this a bit.

I'd love to know what the original GR proposer (Daniel Ruoso) thinks about
this; or the seconders (inc Neil McGovern who is still active at least); I
seem to recall Amaya was involved but I could be remembering wrong.


-- 
Jonathan Dowland
Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private

[Ian Jackson]

Jonathan Dowland writes ("Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge that the debian-private 
list will remain private"):
> This seems a shame to me. It's a promotion of pragmatism over idealism,
> suggesting that despite the project believing that a course of action is
> the right one, it won't happen, pre-supposing any future interest or
> effort will not exist, which is quite pessimistic (however realistic);

Thanks for your message.  I do agree that it's a shame.  I want to try
to reassure you and/or disagree with your suggestion that this is an
retrograde ethical step.

As others have said, the problem is that the previous declassification
procedure promised something which we actually weren't delivering and
which there is no prospect of us delivering.

> essentially closing the door on the issue. I don't know what the driver
> is for this to done now.

As I see it the driver is the passage of time.  Essentially, I think
we are saying we have timed out on the implementation of the 2005 GR.
It's been just over a decade.

Don's proposed resolution clearly does not close the door.  It makes
it possible for someone who is interested in declassification to try
to develop a workable process, consult listmaster and the project, and
to actually declassify things.  If there is in fact anyone who wants
to do this.

(I don't think Nicolas's version closes the door either but the
clarification of intent in Don's amendment is useful.)

> What precedent does this set for any other
> idealistic goals for the project? Perhaps we should give up on annexing
> non-free firmware, or relax other aspects of our committment to freedom
> in the face of hard realities like hardware not having free drivers?

I don't understand your analogies.

In general, we mostly implement our principles in relation to those
kind of issues by _not_ doing things that we consider would breach the
principles.  So for example we don't ship non-free drivers in main.

I don't think we have ever promised to write free drivers or to write
free firmware.  It would be foolish of us to do so.

If you think that -private is a breach of our principle of openness,
then the corresponding response would be to abolish it.  Or perhaps
implement some kind of restrictions on its (ab)use (beyond mere social
convention, which we already have and which we do indeed occasionally
breach).

Ian.

Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private

[Jonathan Dowland]

This seems a shame to me. It's a promotion of pragmatism over idealism,
suggesting that despite the project believing that a course of action is
the right one, it won't happen, pre-supposing any future interest or
effort will not exist, which is quite pessimistic (however realistic);
essentially closing the door on the issue. I don't know what the driver
is for this to done now. What precedent does this set for any other
idealistic goals for the project? Perhaps we should give up on annexing
non-free firmware, or relax other aspects of our committment to freedom
in the face of hard realities like hardware not having free drivers?

-- 
Jonathan Dowland
Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 10:04:00PM +0200, Nicolas Dandrimont wrote:
> * Kurt Roeckx  [2016-07-16 20:52:03 +0200]:
> > This is at least very confusing.  The title says "will remain
> > private", but none of the text says anything about it being
> > private
> 
> I agree that the current title is misleading, as it doesn't convey the wording
> of the full proposal.
> 
> I think that the title could be changed to someting along the lines of
> "Acknowledge that the current debian-private declassification process will not
> be implemented", but I think that's too long. Maybe "Revoke the current
> debian-private declassification process"?
> 
> I don't know if such a title change falls under A.1.6 or not, as the actual
> meaning of the GR is the text, not its title, but the title might have misled
> people into seconding. *shudder*

I suggest you at least change the title.  I don't think that will
alter the meaning.  People can always object to this.

Or do you intend to accept Don's proposal?


Kurt

Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private

[Nicolas Dandrimont]

Hi Kurt,

* Kurt Roeckx  [2016-07-16 20:52:03 +0200]:

> On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 04:46:04PM +0200, Nicolas Dandrimont wrote:
> > * Kurt Roeckx  [2016-07-08 16:21:32 +0200]:
> > 
> > > On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 03:37:08PM +0200, Nicolas Dandrimont wrote:
> > > > === BEGIN GR TEXT ===
> > > > 
> > > > Title: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private.
> > > > 
> > > > 1. The 2005 General Resolution titled "Declassification of 
> > > > debian-private
> > > >list archives" is repealed.
> > > > 2. 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 ===
> > > 
> > > What does this mean for messages to private between the 2005 GR
> > > and this GR passing?  Could you be more explicit about it?
> > 
> > The GR doesn't mean anything for messages that have been sent to -private,
> > actually. It just removes a process that has not been enacted for 10 years, 
> > and
> > won't be in the future.
> > 
> > I would probably accept an amendment making the title of this GR 
> > "Acknowledge
> > that the current process for debian-private declassification won't be 
> > enacted,
> > and repeal it." or something more English.
> > 
> > > (I'm also not sure what the situation before 2005 really was.)
> > 
> > Me neither. In my interpretation of our current foundation documents and
> > regulations, repealing the 2005 GR means that the listmasters are now 
> > empowered
> > to do whatever they wish with the debian-private list archive
> 
> This is at least very confusing.  The title says "will remain
> private", but none of the text says anything about it being
> private and you now seem to suggest that listmaster can just
> decide that it's not private.

I agree that the current title is misleading, as it doesn't convey the wording
of the full proposal.

I think that the title could be changed to someting along the lines of
"Acknowledge that the current debian-private declassification process will not
be implemented", but I think that's too long. Maybe "Revoke the current
debian-private declassification process"?

I don't know if such a title change falls under A.1.6 or not, as the actual
meaning of the GR is the text, not its title, but the title might have misled
people into seconding. *shudder*

> We do have this text in the developer's reference:
> 4.1.3.A Special lists
> 
>  is a special mailing list for
> private discussions amongst Debian developers. It is meant to be
> used for posts which for whatever reason should not be published
> publicly. As such, it is a low volume list, and users are urged
>     not to use  unless it is really
> necessary. Moreover, do not forward email from that list to
> anyone. Archives of this list are not available on the web for
> obvious reasons, but you can see them using your shell account on
> master.debian.org and looking in the ~debian/archive/
> debian-private/ directory.

That's right. However, the Developers Reference is not a binding document,
merely a documentation of existing practice. When and if declassification
happens, whether by listmasters or by others, the devref will need updating.

Thanks for your feedback,
-- 
Nicolas Dandrimont

Dijkstra probably hates me
(Linus Torvalds, in kernel/sched.c)


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 04:46:04PM +0200, Nicolas Dandrimont wrote:
> * Kurt Roeckx  [2016-07-08 16:21:32 +0200]:
> 
> > On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 03:37:08PM +0200, Nicolas Dandrimont wrote:
> > > === BEGIN GR TEXT ===
> > > 
> > > Title: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private.
> > > 
> > > 1. The 2005 General Resolution titled "Declassification of debian-private
> > >list archives" is repealed.
> > > 2. 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 ===
> > 
> > What does this mean for messages to private between the 2005 GR
> > and this GR passing?  Could you be more explicit about it?
> 
> The GR doesn't mean anything for messages that have been sent to -private,
> actually. It just removes a process that has not been enacted for 10 years, 
> and
> won't be in the future.
> 
> I would probably accept an amendment making the title of this GR "Acknowledge
> that the current process for debian-private declassification won't be enacted,
> and repeal it." or something more English.
> 
> > (I'm also not sure what the situation before 2005 really was.)
> 
> Me neither. In my interpretation of our current foundation documents and
> regulations, repealing the 2005 GR means that the listmasters are now 
> empowered
> to do whatever they wish with the debian-private list archive

This is at least very confusing.  The title says "will remain
private", but none of the text says anything about it being
private and you now seem to suggest that listmaster can just
decide that it's not private.

We do have this text in the developer's reference:
4.1.3.A Special lists

 is a special mailing list for
private discussions amongst Debian developers. It is meant to be
used for posts which for whatever reason should not be published
publicly. As such, it is a low volume list, and users are urged
    not to use  unless it is really
necessary. Moreover, do not forward email from that list to
anyone. Archives of this list are not available on the web for
obvious reasons, but you can see them using your shell account on
master.debian.org and looking in the ~debian/archive/
debian-private/ directory.


Kurt

Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private

[Bernd Zeimetz]

On 07/07/2016 03:37 PM, Nicolas Dandrimont wrote:

> === BEGIN GR TEXT ===
> 
> Title: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private.
> 
> 1. The 2005 General Resolution titled "Declassification of debian-private
>list archives" is repealed.
> 2. 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.

-- 
 Bernd ZeimetzDebian GNU/Linux Developer
 http://bzed.dehttp://www.debian.org
 GPG Fingerprint: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485  DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private

[Erik Schanze]

On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 03:37:08PM +0200, Nicolas Dandrimont wrote:
> In 2005, the body of Debian Developers passed a General Resolution[1] 
> requiring
> the creation of a declassification team for the debian-private mailing list.
> For the past ten years, the implementation of this GR has never materialized,
> despite an explicit call for volunteers[2] by the DPL in 2010.
> 
> [1] https://www.debian.org/vote/2005/vote_002
> [2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2010/05/msg00105.html
> 
> Over the years, several important discussions have happened on the
> debian-private mailing list that needed to stay private. Oftentimes, when a
> discussion has carried on for a while, some participants have reminded others
> that the discussion should be summarized in a public thread on either the
> debian-devel or the debian-project mailing lists.
> 
> While we agree with the intentions behind the original GR, we believe it is 
> now
> time to acknowledge that the declassification of debian-private will never
> happen, and that we should instead strongly encourage developers to move
> discussions to public channels as soon as the sensitivity of the discussion
> subsides.
> 
> We therefore propose the following General Resolution:
> 
> === BEGIN GR TEXT ===
> 
> Title: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private.
> 
> 1. The 2005 General Resolution titled "Declassification of debian-private
>list archives" is repealed.
> 2. 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.


Kind regards and thanks


Erik



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private

[Philipp Kern]

On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 03:37:08PM +0200, Nicolas Dandrimont wrote:
> In 2005, the body of Debian Developers passed a General Resolution[1] 
> requiring
> the creation of a declassification team for the debian-private mailing list.
> For the past ten years, the implementation of this GR has never materialized,
> despite an explicit call for volunteers[2] by the DPL in 2010.
> 
> [1] https://www.debian.org/vote/2005/vote_002
> [2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2010/05/msg00105.html
> 
> Over the years, several important discussions have happened on the
> debian-private mailing list that needed to stay private. Oftentimes, when a
> discussion has carried on for a while, some participants have reminded others
> that the discussion should be summarized in a public thread on either the
> debian-devel or the debian-project mailing lists.
> 
> While we agree with the intentions behind the original GR, we believe it is 
> now
> time to acknowledge that the declassification of debian-private will never
> happen, and that we should instead strongly encourage developers to move
> discussions to public channels as soon as the sensitivity of the discussion
> subsides.
> 
> We therefore propose the following General Resolution:
> 
> === BEGIN GR TEXT ===
> 
> Title: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private.
> 
> 1. The 2005 General Resolution titled "Declassification of debian-private
>list archives" is repealed.
> 2. 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.

I think if this brings us back to the clean slate where people could
take selected threads and try to declassify them, that'd be a win. There
are already valuable guidelines in the text of the to be repealed GR
that could be used on an informal basis even if the GR is technically no
longer valid by then. In the worst case one could make it dependent on
all authors' consent. But I think any way agreed upon with the
listmasters (which probably should be delegates?) should be fine. And
once the GR is repealed posts that are of historic value can be
considered as well, which is good.

Kind regards and thanks
Philipp Kern


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private

[Joerg Jaspert]

On 14361 March 1977, Nicolas Dandrimont wrote:

> === BEGIN GR TEXT ===
>
> Title: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private.
>
> 1. The 2005 General Resolution titled "Declassification of debian-private
>list archives" is repealed.
> 2. 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.

-- 
bye, Joerg
> 20. What would you do if you wanted to retire from the project?
Remove the passphrase from the (secret) gpg key and post it to
debian-devel. The keyring maintainers will lock the account ASAP.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private

[Nicolas Dandrimont]

* Kurt Roeckx  [2016-07-08 16:21:32 +0200]:

> On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 03:37:08PM +0200, Nicolas Dandrimont wrote:
> > === BEGIN GR TEXT ===
> > 
> > Title: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private.
> > 
> > 1. The 2005 General Resolution titled "Declassification of debian-private
> >list archives" is repealed.
> > 2. 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 ===
> 
> What does this mean for messages to private between the 2005 GR
> and this GR passing?  Could you be more explicit about it?

The GR doesn't mean anything for messages that have been sent to -private,
actually. It just removes a process that has not been enacted for 10 years, and
won't be in the future.

I would probably accept an amendment making the title of this GR "Acknowledge
that the current process for debian-private declassification won't be enacted,
and repeal it." or something more English.

> (I'm also not sure what the situation before 2005 really was.)

Me neither. In my interpretation of our current foundation documents and
regulations, repealing the 2005 GR means that the listmasters are now empowered
to do whatever they wish with the debian-private list archive, within the
limits of US law of course (as I believe that's where they're hosted). At their
discretion, listmasters will always be able to ask the project to endorse
whichever process they wish to establish, if they ever find volunteers to do
the declassification work for historical purposes, although I have complete
trust in their judgement and therefore I don't feel it's necessary.

In other words, if we remove the 2005 GR, debian-private is not a special list
anymore, and we trust the listmasters judgement on its archive.

And I'm fine with that.
-- 
Nicolas Dandrimont

BOFH excuse #5:
static from plastic slide rules


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 03:37:08PM +0200, Nicolas Dandrimont wrote:
> === BEGIN GR TEXT ===
> 
> Title: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private.
> 
> 1. The 2005 General Resolution titled "Declassification of debian-private
>list archives" is repealed.
> 2. 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 ===

What does this mean for messages to private between the 2005 GR
and this GR passing?  Could you be more explicit about it?

(I'm also not sure what the situation before 2005 really was.)


Kurt

Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 03:37:08PM +0200, Nicolas Dandrimont wrote:
> === BEGIN GR TEXT ===
> 
> Title: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private.
> 
> 1. The 2005 General Resolution titled "Declassification of debian-private
>list archives" is repealed.
> 2. 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 ===

This proposals had enough seconds.  I'll set up the vote page
soon.


Kurt

Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private

[Gunnar Wolf]

Don Armstrong dijo [Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 12:31:40PM -0500]:
> > I would prefer removing the possibility of ever implementing it
> > without another vote. We can always vote again if someone comes up
> > with a workable scheme.
> 
> That puts a whole lot of stop energy in front of anyone who actually is
> interested in trying to declassify -private, though; they'd have to come
> up with a method, bikeshed the method, and then propose a vote which
> still might not succeed.

The currently accepted method has shown to be ineffective. And that's
a strong understatement.

> I know that the vote to disallow declassifying anything before 2008
> stopped me from working on this when I was interested in understanding
> the early project history.
> 
> Going forward, another alternative is to:
> 
> 1) Keep the method for the archives; it sucks, but it doesn't really
> hurt anything.

It hurts in the way that we are promising something that we are not
doing, and that we know we won't ever do.

> 2) All messages to -private will be declassified within 3 years with the
>exception of:
> 
>a) [VAC] messages

I understand the reason for current VAC messages to be private. But,
is it really important to keep private that you went on vacation to
such-and-such for some-duration some years into the past? Only for a
small minority of the cases.

>b) messages with [PRIVATE] in the subject; all such messages must be
>PGP signed with a key in the keyring or they will be rejected by the
>mailing list software.

Usually conversations are sprinkled with disclosable messages quoting
private messages. There is no sane way to go through it automatically
without falling into false positives, negatives or both. That is one
of the reasons the 2005 GR was never put into practice. And that is
one of the reasons why the current text is proposed as a GR.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private

[Luca Filipozzi]

On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 03:37:08PM +0200, Nicolas Dandrimont wrote:
> === BEGIN GR TEXT ===
> 
> Title: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private.
> 
> 1. The 2005 General Resolution titled "Declassification of debian-private
>list archives" is repealed.
> 2. 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.

-- 
Luca Filipozzi
http://www.crowdrise.com/SupportDebian


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private

[Didier 'OdyX' Raboud]

Le jeudi, 7 juillet 2016, 12.31:40 Don Armstrong a écrit :
> That puts a whole lot of stop energy in front of anyone who actually
> is interested in trying to declassify -private, though; they'd have
> to come up with a method, bikeshed the method, and then propose a
> vote which still might not succeed.

The previous GR apparently hasn't removed enough of the stop-energy 
either; it is time for us to acknowledge that it is not workable.

I also kinda disagree that in the absence of a GR (aka before the 05-002 
GR, or after we'd have repeal'ed it) there are real active blockers 
against declassification.

Afterall, "technically", our promise of privacy for d-private is only 
regulated by the developers-reference that says, in §4.1.3:
>  is a special mailing list for
> private discussions amongst Debian developers. It is meant to be used
> for posts which for whatever reason should not be published publicly.
> As such, it is a low volume list, and users are urged not to use
>  unless it is really necessary.
> Moreover, do _not_ forward email from that list to anyone.

I'd argue that, barring any specific GR, the declassification of d-
private is technically something of the jurisdiction of the listmasters.
I trust their ability to come up with a declassification procedure that 
respects the best interests of the back-then writers and those of the 
project.

We should now acknowledge that the work to declassify d-private archives 
would be very sensitive, complex and would need quite a load of good 
judgment calls. Given the assumption that the most interesting part is 
the early days (aka pre-2005 GR), we have no process anyhow.

In short, I think that no matter the process, declassification would not 
happen, as it's a too complex problem. I'm fine with us taking that 
position.

-- 
Cheers,
OdyX

Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private

[Hubert Chathi]

On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 16:54:23 +0100, MJ Ray  said:

[...]

> I feel an attempt should be made to reform that process to something
> we might stand a chance of implementing, rather than abolish it
> entirely, but I'm currently unable to second Don's excellent
> amendments.  I beg other DDs to consider them favourably.

Given that, IIRC, one of the main reasons for wanting to declassify
-private was that people wanted to be able to refer to previous
discussions on -private that were historically significant, I'm
wondering if a more sane approach would be to just say something along
the lines of "anything on -private older than 3 years (and excluding the
items excluded in the original GR) may be quoted publicly".

Doing something like this means for content that people care about, the
declassification work gets done by the people who care about it, and
nobody has to worry about content that nobody cares about.

Alternatively, the "declassification team" could just be a team that
receives declassification requests, determines whether the requested
posts may be declassified, and if so, plops the posts into a public
archive somewhere.  This would give more control over the
declassification process and make sure that it is done by people who
understand the rules.



-- 
Hubert Chathi  -- Jabber: hub...@uhoreg.ca
PGP/GnuPG key: 4096R/113A1368 https://www.uhoreg.ca/
Fingerprint: F24C F749 6C73 DDB8 DCB8  72DE B2DE 88D3 113A 1368

Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private

[Don Armstrong]

On Thu, 07 Jul 2016, Russ Allbery wrote:

> Don Armstrong  writes:
> 
> > I have no problem acknowledging that we haven't been able to implement
> > the existing GR, but I don't see the utility of voting to remove the
> > possibility of ever implementing it.
> 
> I would prefer removing the possibility of ever implementing it
> without another vote. We can always vote again if someone comes up
> with a workable scheme.

That puts a whole lot of stop energy in front of anyone who actually is
interested in trying to declassify -private, though; they'd have to come
up with a method, bikeshed the method, and then propose a vote which
still might not succeed.

I know that the vote to disallow declassifying anything before 2008
stopped me from working on this when I was interested in understanding
the early project history.

Going forward, another alternative is to:

1) Keep the method for the archives; it sucks, but it doesn't really
hurt anything.

2) All messages to -private will be declassified within 3 years with the
   exception of:

   a) [VAC] messages

   b) messages with [PRIVATE] in the subject; all such messages must be
   PGP signed with a key in the keyring or they will be rejected by the
   mailing list software.


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

This isn't life in the fast lane, it's life in the oncoming traffic
 -- Terry Pratchett

Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private

[Nicolas Dandrimont]

* Russ Allbery  [2016-07-07 09:57:38 -0700]:

> Don Armstrong  writes:
> 
> > I have no problem acknowledging that we haven't been able to implement
> > the existing GR, but I don't see the utility of voting to remove the
> > possibility of ever implementing it.
> 
> I would prefer removing the possibility of ever implementing it without
> another vote.  We can always vote again if someone comes up with a
> workable scheme.
> 
> The possibility of declassification affects discussion, causes a lot of
> people to add signatures saying to never declassify their messages, and
> keeps coming up as people fret about it.  This is all wasted energy and
> worry given that there is no realistic prospect that the declassification
> will happen.
> 
> Your proposal is an improvement, but it still leaves a lot of uncertainty.
> Since there are no plans to actually do anything about declassification,
> and since there seems to be widespread agreement that the method for
> declassification in the previous GR, while well-intentioned, is
> unimplementable in practice, let's just remove the whole thing and require
> another vote if anyone later comes up with a good idea.  It simplifies
> matters.

That's my line of thinking as well.

Thanks,
-- 
Nicolas Dandrimont

BOFH excuse #344:
Network failure -  call NBC


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private

[Russ Allbery]

Don Armstrong  writes:

> I have no problem acknowledging that we haven't been able to implement
> the existing GR, but I don't see the utility of voting to remove the
> possibility of ever implementing it.

I would prefer removing the possibility of ever implementing it without
another vote.  We can always vote again if someone comes up with a
workable scheme.

The possibility of declassification affects discussion, causes a lot of
people to add signatures saying to never declassify their messages, and
keeps coming up as people fret about it.  This is all wasted energy and
worry given that there is no realistic prospect that the declassification
will happen.

Your proposal is an improvement, but it still leaves a lot of uncertainty.
Since there are no plans to actually do anything about declassification,
and since there seems to be widespread agreement that the method for
declassification in the previous GR, while well-intentioned, is
unimplementable in practice, let's just remove the whole thing and require
another vote if anyone later comes up with a good idea.  It simplifies
matters.

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

Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private

[Jakub Wilk]

* Don Armstrong , 2016-07-07, 10:37:

=== BEGIN GR TEXT ===

Title: Acknowledge that Debian has failed to declassify debian-private

1. Debian acknowledges that it has failed to declassify debian-private, 
and that this is unlikely to change at any point in the future.


2. 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 ===


That's much better. I'd happy to second it.

--
Jakub Wilk

Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private

[MJ Ray]

On 07/07/16 16:37, Don Armstrong wrote:
> I have no problem acknowledging that we haven't been able to implement
> the existing GR, but I don't see the utility of voting to remove the
> possibility of ever implementing it.

I agree 100%.

> I don't see how we could ever declassify -private without this amendment
> as the previous vote had an alternative to declassify mails before 2005
> which failed, [I should note too, that I've attempted on one or two
> occasions to go through and declassify -private, but the process
> required was far too clunky.]

I've only looked at this once but "too clunky" is being far too nice
about the process set out in https://www.debian.org/vote/2005/vote_002 -
it requires a team to be delegated that then writes a sophisticated
automated system which does a load of indexing, natural language
parsing, dereferencing, email interfacing, semi-private publication and
more email interfacing!

I don't think it's implementable in any sensible manner.  At the very
least, the requirement for the declassification to be automatic needs to
be removed because no automatic system is going to adhere to those
constraints perfectly.

It also couldn't be implemented before December 2008 because there was
nothing to implement it on until then, thanks to the amendment.  So the
new proposed GR is wrong in its preamble to suggest it could have been
implemented ten years ago.

I feel an attempt should be made to reform that process to something we
might stand a chance of implementing, rather than abolish it entirely,
but I'm currently unable to second Don's excellent amendments.  I beg
other DDs to consider them favourably.

Hope that explains,
-- 
MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op
http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer.
In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Available for hire (including development) at http://www.software.coop/

Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private

[Cyril Brulebois]

Nicolas Dandrimont  (2016-07-07):
> In 2005, the body of Debian Developers passed a General Resolution[1] 
> requiring
> the creation of a declassification team for the debian-private mailing list.
> For the past ten years, the implementation of this GR has never materialized,
> despite an explicit call for volunteers[2] by the DPL in 2010.
> 
> [1] https://www.debian.org/vote/2005/vote_002
> [2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2010/05/msg00105.html
> 
> Over the years, several important discussions have happened on the
> debian-private mailing list that needed to stay private. Oftentimes, when a
> discussion has carried on for a while, some participants have reminded others
> that the discussion should be summarized in a public thread on either the
> debian-devel or the debian-project mailing lists.
> 
> While we agree with the intentions behind the original GR, we believe it is 
> now
> time to acknowledge that the declassification of debian-private will never
> happen, and that we should instead strongly encourage developers to move
> discussions to public channels as soon as the sensitivity of the discussion
> subsides.
> 
> We therefore propose the following General Resolution:
> 
> === BEGIN GR TEXT ===
> 
> Title: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private.
> 
> 1. The 2005 General Resolution titled "Declassification of debian-private
>list archives" is repealed.
> 2. 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 your consideration,
> -- 
> Nicolas Dandrimont (with thanks to all who helped writing this)

Seconded.


KiBi.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private

[Don Armstrong]

On Thu, 07 Jul 2016, Nicolas Dandrimont wrote:
> The acknowledgement is about failing to implement the existing GR,
> being honest about it, and to let us move on from it.

I have no problem acknowledging that we haven't been able to implement
the existing GR, but I don't see the utility of voting to remove the
possibility of ever implementing it.

I don't see how we could ever declassify -private without this amendment
as the previous vote had an alternative to declassify mails before 2005
which failed, [I should note too, that I've attempted on one or two
occasions to go through and declassify -private, but the process
required was far too clunky.]

Therefore, I'm contemplating proposing an amendment to this proposed GR
which either acknowledges that we have failed to declassify -private for
the time being, or gives listmaster@ the ability to define a published
procedure for the automated declassification of private.

Possible text for the former here:

=== BEGIN GR TEXT ===

Title: Acknowledge that Debian has failed to declassify debian-private

1. Debian acknowledges that it has failed to declassify debian-private,
   and that this is unlikely to change at any point in the future.

2. 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 is no mechanical problem so difficult that it cannot be solved
by brute strength and ignorance.
 -- William's Law

Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private

[Steve McIntyre]

On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 03:37:08PM +0200, Nicolas Dandrimont wrote:
>In 2005, the body of Debian Developers passed a General Resolution[1] requiring
>the creation of a declassification team for the debian-private mailing list.
>For the past ten years, the implementation of this GR has never materialized,
>despite an explicit call for volunteers[2] by the DPL in 2010.
>
>[1] https://www.debian.org/vote/2005/vote_002
>[2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2010/05/msg00105.html
>
>Over the years, several important discussions have happened on the
>debian-private mailing list that needed to stay private. Oftentimes, when a
>discussion has carried on for a while, some participants have reminded others
>that the discussion should be summarized in a public thread on either the
>debian-devel or the debian-project mailing lists.
>
>While we agree with the intentions behind the original GR, we believe it is now
>time to acknowledge that the declassification of debian-private will never
>happen, and that we should instead strongly encourage developers to move
>discussions to public channels as soon as the sensitivity of the discussion
>subsides.
>
>We therefore propose the following General Resolution:
>
>=== BEGIN GR TEXT ===
>
>Title: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private.
>
>1. The 2005 General Resolution titled "Declassification of debian-private
>   list archives" is repealed.
>2. 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 your consideration,

Yay, seconded.

-- 
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com
Can't keep my eyes from the circling sky,
Tongue-tied & twisted, Just an earth-bound misfit, I...


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private

[Stefano Zacchiroli]

On July 7, 2016 4:48:19 PM GMT+02:00, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud  
wrote:
>Point is; only "Developers" (the term our constitution uses) are 
>supposed to ever have been subscribed to d-private.

JFTR: the Constitution uses both "developers" and "members", interchangeably.

-- 
Sent from my mobile phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private

[Ian Jackson]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

Nicolas Dandrimont writes ("Proposed GR: Acknowledge that the debian-private 
list will remain private"):
> === BEGIN GR TEXT ===
> 
> Title: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private.
> 
> 1. The 2005 General Resolution titled "Declassification of debian-private
>list archives" is repealed.
> 2. 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.

Ian.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJXfnHsAAoJEOPjOSNItQ05WVUIAJFTTlHMVvd52FSadqD/IySl
n+gkwKOaSE3y8rDOaEwpIbeXcUmI9lStQXq0A6QM0lkNrBbISLEEnab5KjG8Zueq
S0OM6eHP66caPzSlF601wxpba7SXYoXrOkxf6sDyaT36w0IMwQunshu/ppfDV6p8
/swKLoXAVuRkQCgjTrcp1pY26pRyLP88YpuFz5BrML3l2uHTs+1a0qsY6PE4bzqE
lh34szDAhYnY/vhqzDDxkGJWFTAvEZ+LBXMRX4vw+EPggEQS5xNjovgOMYVx1mvq
egJ+RLrUbQrEbVCTkv4Au7cwdx+RCZE+7SFOayMhD5G3zu98D6/IOS5pyjksYEw=
=gH95
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private

[Jonathan McDowell]

On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 03:37:08PM +0200, Nicolas Dandrimont wrote:
> In 2005, the body of Debian Developers passed a General Resolution[1]
> requiring the creation of a declassification team for the
> debian-private mailing list.  For the past ten years, the
> implementation of this GR has never materialized, despite an explicit
> call for volunteers[2] by the DPL in 2010.
>
> [1] https://www.debian.org/vote/2005/vote_002
> [2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2010/05/msg00105.html
> 
> Over the years, several important discussions have happened on the
> debian-private mailing list that needed to stay private. Oftentimes, when a
> discussion has carried on for a while, some participants have reminded others
> that the discussion should be summarized in a public thread on either the
> debian-devel or the debian-project mailing lists.
> 
> While we agree with the intentions behind the original GR, we believe it is 
> now
> time to acknowledge that the declassification of debian-private will never
> happen, and that we should instead strongly encourage developers to move
> discussions to public channels as soon as the sensitivity of the discussion
> subsides.
> 
> We therefore propose the following General Resolution:
> 
> === BEGIN GR TEXT ===
> 
> Title: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private.
> 
> 1. The 2005 General Resolution titled "Declassification of debian-private
>list archives" is repealed.
> 2. 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 your consideration,

Seconded.

J.

-- 


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private

[Didier 'OdyX' Raboud]

Le jeudi, 7 juillet 2016, 14.39:21 Holger Levsen a écrit :
> (should the text be reworded, I'd like to propose s#Debian
> Developers#Debian members#g.)

Point is; only "Developers" (the term our constitution uses) are 
supposed to ever have been subscribed to d-private.

That said, we could amend the constitution in a separate GR.

-- 
Cheers,
OdyX

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private

[Holger Levsen]

On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 03:37:08PM +0200, Nicolas Dandrimont wrote:
> === BEGIN GR TEXT ===
> 
> Title: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private.
> 
> 1. The 2005 General Resolution titled "Declassification of debian-private
>list archives" is repealed.
> 2. 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 & thank you for this!

(should the text be reworded, I'd like to propose s#Debian
Developers#Debian members#g.)


-- 
cheers,
Holger


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private

[Nicolas Dandrimont]

* Jakub Wilk  [2016-07-07 16:15:44 +0200]:

> * Nicolas Dandrimont , 2016-07-07, 15:37:
> >=== BEGIN GR TEXT ===
> >
> >Title: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private.
> >
> >1. The 2005 General Resolution titled "Declassification of debian-private
> >list archives" is repealed.
> >2. 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 ===
> 
> The title says "Acknowledge", but there is no such acknowledgement in the
> rest of the text.
> 
> If you want -private remain private forever, say so explicitly.

I don't think that we need to state whether debian-private needs to stay
private or not in a GR.

The acknowledgement is about failing to implement the existing GR, being honest
about it, and to let us move on from it.

I would welcome the mails from the early days of -private to become public, as
some of them are of invaluable historical importance. That doesn't need to be
decided by GR.

Thanks,
-- 
Nicolas Dandrimont


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private

[Jakub Wilk]

* Nicolas Dandrimont , 2016-07-07, 15:37:

=== BEGIN GR TEXT ===

Title: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private.

1. The 2005 General Resolution titled "Declassification of 
debian-private list archives" is repealed.
2. 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 ===


The title says "Acknowledge", but there is no such acknowledgement in 
the rest of the text.


If you want -private remain private forever, say so explicitly.

--
Jakub Wilk

Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private

[Iain Lane]

On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 03:37:08PM +0200, Nicolas Dandrimont wrote:
> In 2005, the body of Debian Developers passed a General Resolution[1] 
> requiring
> the creation of a declassification team for the debian-private mailing list.
> For the past ten years, the implementation of this GR has never materialized,
> despite an explicit call for volunteers[2] by the DPL in 2010.
> 
> [1] https://www.debian.org/vote/2005/vote_002
> [2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2010/05/msg00105.html
> 
> Over the years, several important discussions have happened on the
> debian-private mailing list that needed to stay private. Oftentimes, when a
> discussion has carried on for a while, some participants have reminded others
> that the discussion should be summarized in a public thread on either the
> debian-devel or the debian-project mailing lists.
> 
> While we agree with the intentions behind the original GR, we believe it is 
> now
> time to acknowledge that the declassification of debian-private will never
> happen, and that we should instead strongly encourage developers to move
> discussions to public channels as soon as the sensitivity of the discussion
> subsides.
> 
> We therefore propose the following General Resolution:
> 
> === BEGIN GR TEXT ===
> 
> Title: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private.
> 
> 1. The 2005 General Resolution titled "Declassification of debian-private
>list archives" is repealed.
> 2. 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. Thanks for working on this.

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


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private

[Gunnar Wolf]

Nicolas Dandrimont dijo [Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 03:37:08PM +0200]:
> 
> === BEGIN GR TEXT ===
> 
> Title: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private.
> 
> 1. The 2005 General Resolution titled "Declassification of debian-private
>list archives" is repealed.
> 2. 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 your consideration,


I hereby second this proposal.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private

[Neil McGovern]

On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 03:37:08PM +0200, Nicolas Dandrimont wrote:
> === BEGIN GR TEXT ===
> 
> Title: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private.
> 
> 1. The 2005 General Resolution titled "Declassification of debian-private
>list archives" is repealed.
> 2. 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.

Neil
-- 


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private

[Mattia Rizzolo]

On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 03:37:08PM +0200, Nicolas Dandrimont wrote:
> We therefore propose the following General Resolution:
> 
> === BEGIN GR TEXT ===
> 
> Title: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private.
> 
> 1. The 2005 General Resolution titled "Declassification of debian-private
>list archives" is repealed.
> 2. 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.

-- 
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo

GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18  4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540  .''`.
more about me:  https://mapreri.org : :'  :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri  `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia  `-


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private

[Mehdi Dogguy]

Hi,

On 07/07/2016 15:37, Nicolas Dandrimont wrote:
> === BEGIN GR TEXT ===
> 
> Title: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private.
> 
> 1. The 2005 General Resolution titled "Declassification of debian-private
>list archives" is repealed.
> 2. 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 ===
> 

Thank you Nicolas for working on this and bringing it up!

And… seconded.

-- 
Mehdi



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private

[Ana Guerrero Lopez]

On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 03:37:08PM +0200, Nicolas Dandrimont wrote:
> In 2005, the body of Debian Developers passed a General Resolution[1] 
> requiring
> the creation of a declassification team for the debian-private mailing list.
> For the past ten years, the implementation of this GR has never materialized,
> despite an explicit call for volunteers[2] by the DPL in 2010.
> 
> [1] https://www.debian.org/vote/2005/vote_002
> [2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2010/05/msg00105.html
> 
> Over the years, several important discussions have happened on the
> debian-private mailing list that needed to stay private. Oftentimes, when a
> discussion has carried on for a while, some participants have reminded others
> that the discussion should be summarized in a public thread on either the
> debian-devel or the debian-project mailing lists.
> 
> While we agree with the intentions behind the original GR, we believe it is 
> now
> time to acknowledge that the declassification of debian-private will never
> happen, and that we should instead strongly encourage developers to move
> discussions to public channels as soon as the sensitivity of the discussion
> subsides.
> 
> We therefore propose the following General Resolution:
> 
> === BEGIN GR TEXT ===
> 
> Title: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private.
> 
> 1. The 2005 General Resolution titled "Declassification of debian-private
>list archives" is repealed.
> 2. 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: Proposed GR: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private

[Didier 'OdyX' Raboud]

Le jeudi, 7 juillet 2016, 15.37:08 Nicolas Dandrimont a écrit :
> === BEGIN GR TEXT ===
> 
> Title: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private.
> 
> 1. The 2005 General Resolution titled "Declassification of
>debian-private list archives" is repealed.
> 2. 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.

Thank you for all the people at DebConf16 (more precisely so, in the 
pub) that helped review this text.

-- 
Cheers,
OdyX

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.