Kuvaja, Erno wrote: > [...] > 1) One does not need to express themselves in a way that is for public. ( > Misunderstandings can be corrected on the fly if needed. ) There is no need > to explain to anyone reading the logs what you actually meant during the > conversation month ago. > 2) there is level of confidentiality within that defined audience. ( For > example someone not familiar with the processes thinks they have found > security vulnerability and comes to the IRC-channel to ask second opinion. > Those details are not public and that bug can still be raised and dealt > properly. Once the discussion is logged and the logs are publicly available > the details are publicly available as well. ) > 3) That defined audience does not usually limit content. I have no problem to > throw my e-mail address, phone number etc. into the channel, I would not yell > them out publicly. > [...]
All 3 arguments point to issues you have with *public* channels, not *logged* channels. Our IRC channels are, in effect, already public. Anyone can join them, anyone can log them. An embargoed vulnerability discussed on an IRC channel (logged or not) should be considered leaked. I agree that logging makes it easier for random people to access that already-public information, but you can't consider an IRC channel private (and change your communication style or content) because it's not logged by eavesdrop. What you seem to be after is a private, invitation-only IRC channel. That's an orthogonal issue to the concept of logging. -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
