Re: GR Proposal 2: Declassification of -private

2005-11-21 Thread Thomas Bushnell BSG
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> [...] And if this is a >> problem, then we have the amendment which will enable the procedure >> only for future posts. > > I'm amazed anyone considers otherwise. It's unethical to publish > things that debian promised to keep private. I think it also leaves >

Re: GR Proposal 2: Declassification of -private

2005-11-21 Thread Ean Schuessler
On Monday 21 November 2005 12:00 pm, MJ Ray wrote: > I'm amazed anyone considers otherwise. It's unethical to publish > things that debian promised to keep private. I think it also leaves > us wide open to accusations of infringing copyright. In the final analysis, does debian-private "own" any of

Re: GR Proposal: Declassification of -private

2005-11-21 Thread Adrian von Bidder
On Tuesday 15 November 2005 03.08, Anthony Towns wrote: [...] > And beyond that, there really are a lot of good ideas stuck in the > -private archives that it'd be nice to be able to refer to properly. This seems to be the only reason to me - the other stated reasons can be paraphrased as 'becaus

Re: GR Proposal 2: Declassification of -private

2005-11-21 Thread MJ Ray
Kalle Kivimaa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > The proposal guarantees that if an author wishes his/her post(s) to > remain confidential, they will do so. The proposal has a specific > procedure that must be followed to publish any -private message, > either past or future, and the author of the message has a

Re: GR Proposal 2: Declassification of -private

2005-11-21 Thread Kalle Kivimaa
Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I fully agree with Monroe - WHEN an author writes to > -private, s/he declares his wishes to expect this information to be kept > confidential and in some countries s/he may have even guaranteed rights. The proposal guarantees that if an author wishes his