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

On Wed, 2016-08-10 at 08:25 +0200, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: > So you do not believe "it would be acceptable for any message to be > made  > public without explicit approval of the author", but the project has > _not_  > decided to make past messages' declassification dependent on explicit >

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

Le mardi, 9 août 2016, 00.14:49 h CEST Nick Phillips a écrit : > To be clear - I do not believe that it would be acceptable for any message > to be made public without explicit approval of the author. A mere lack of > objection is not enough - however it does seem to me that this is a road > that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 >

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

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

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

* 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

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

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

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

* 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

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

-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

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

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

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

* 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* 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

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

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

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

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

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 === Title: Declassifying parts of -private of historical interest 1. The 2005 General Resolution titled

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

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

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

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,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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