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 post not to be published will be honored" while 2016/vote_002 does not 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
