Kalle Kivimaa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [...] And as you can see from the proposal, we all
> have a veto on the declassification [...]
There is no *veto* in the proposal. There is a limited opportunity
for the message author to object and otherwise a GR can be used
- which would be possible anyway if
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I also worry about security reports that include personally
> identifiable information, trade (business?) secrets or copyrighted
> material, which are not really relevant to the bug itself, but were
> sent in with the expectation that this was a typical vendor s
Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 03:00:42PM +, Moray Allan wrote:
> > Wouldn't it be better for people interested in opening the -private
> > archives to try a pure opt-in approach first? (Which wouldn't require
> > any change to current policies.)
>
> If most of the archive sho
On Friday 02 December 2005 03.35, Anthony Towns wrote:
> (Followups to -vote)
>
> On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 08:30:37AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
> > The primary reason for this is that the existing messages were sent to
> > debian-private with an expectation of privacy.
>
> As Matthew pointed out
On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 11:03:03PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Wouter Verhelst:
> > First of all, I do think we can, per 4.1.3 (as others have already
> > pointed out). However, I don't think that is relevant; "Debian will seek
> > to do foo" doesn't mean "Debian will do foo", and "This proces
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Some of these issues are certainly unfixed, and very, very few might
> even be unpublished. It's unlikely that one of those has been sent to
> Debian, though.
And if it has been sent to Debian and ignored, I'd say that our Social
Contract _mandates_ us
6 matches
Mail list logo
