Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 04:46:04PM +0200, Nicolas Dandrimont wrote:
> * Kurt Roeckx  [2016-07-08 16:21:32 +0200]:
> 
> > On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 03:37:08PM +0200, Nicolas Dandrimont wrote:
> > > === BEGIN GR TEXT ===
> > > 
> > > Title: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private.
> > > 
> > > 1. The 2005 General Resolution titled "Declassification of debian-private
> > >list archives" is repealed.
> > > 2. In keeping with paragraph 3 of the Debian Social Contract, Debian
> > >Developers are strongly encouraged to use the debian-private mailing
> > >list only for discussions that should not be disclosed.
> > > 
> > > === END GR TEXT ===
> > 
> > What does this mean for messages to private between the 2005 GR
> > and this GR passing?  Could you be more explicit about it?
> 
> The GR doesn't mean anything for messages that have been sent to -private,
> actually. It just removes a process that has not been enacted for 10 years, 
> and
> won't be in the future.
> 
> I would probably accept an amendment making the title of this GR "Acknowledge
> that the current process for debian-private declassification won't be enacted,
> and repeal it." or something more English.
> 
> > (I'm also not sure what the situation before 2005 really was.)
> 
> Me neither. In my interpretation of our current foundation documents and
> regulations, repealing the 2005 GR means that the listmasters are now 
> empowered
> to do whatever they wish with the debian-private list archive

This is at least very confusing.  The title says "will remain
private", but none of the text says anything about it being
private and you now seem to suggest that listmaster can just
decide that it's not private.

We do have this text in the developer's reference:
4.1.3.A Special lists

 is a special mailing list for
private discussions amongst Debian developers. It is meant to be
used for posts which for whatever reason should not be published
publicly. As such, it is a low volume list, and users are urged
    not to use  unless it is really
necessary. Moreover, do not forward email from that list to
anyone. Archives of this list are not available on the web for
obvious reasons, but you can see them using your shell account on
master.debian.org and looking in the ~debian/archive/
debian-private/ directory.


Kurt

Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private

[Nicolas Dandrimont]

Hi Kurt,

* Kurt Roeckx  [2016-07-16 20:52:03 +0200]:

> On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 04:46:04PM +0200, Nicolas Dandrimont wrote:
> > * Kurt Roeckx  [2016-07-08 16:21:32 +0200]:
> > 
> > > On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 03:37:08PM +0200, Nicolas Dandrimont wrote:
> > > > === BEGIN GR TEXT ===
> > > > 
> > > > Title: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private.
> > > > 
> > > > 1. The 2005 General Resolution titled "Declassification of 
> > > > debian-private
> > > >list archives" is repealed.
> > > > 2. In keeping with paragraph 3 of the Debian Social Contract, Debian
> > > >Developers are strongly encouraged to use the debian-private mailing
> > > >list only for discussions that should not be disclosed.
> > > > 
> > > > === END GR TEXT ===
> > > 
> > > What does this mean for messages to private between the 2005 GR
> > > and this GR passing?  Could you be more explicit about it?
> > 
> > The GR doesn't mean anything for messages that have been sent to -private,
> > actually. It just removes a process that has not been enacted for 10 years, 
> > and
> > won't be in the future.
> > 
> > I would probably accept an amendment making the title of this GR 
> > "Acknowledge
> > that the current process for debian-private declassification won't be 
> > enacted,
> > and repeal it." or something more English.
> > 
> > > (I'm also not sure what the situation before 2005 really was.)
> > 
> > Me neither. In my interpretation of our current foundation documents and
> > regulations, repealing the 2005 GR means that the listmasters are now 
> > empowered
> > to do whatever they wish with the debian-private list archive
> 
> This is at least very confusing.  The title says "will remain
> private", but none of the text says anything about it being
> private and you now seem to suggest that listmaster can just
> decide that it's not private.

I agree that the current title is misleading, as it doesn't convey the wording
of the full proposal.

I think that the title could be changed to someting along the lines of
"Acknowledge that the current debian-private declassification process will not
be implemented", but I think that's too long. Maybe "Revoke the current
debian-private declassification process"?

I don't know if such a title change falls under A.1.6 or not, as the actual
meaning of the GR is the text, not its title, but the title might have misled
people into seconding. *shudder*

> We do have this text in the developer's reference:
> 4.1.3.A Special lists
> 
>  is a special mailing list for
> private discussions amongst Debian developers. It is meant to be
> used for posts which for whatever reason should not be published
> publicly. As such, it is a low volume list, and users are urged
>     not to use  unless it is really
> necessary. Moreover, do not forward email from that list to
> anyone. Archives of this list are not available on the web for
> obvious reasons, but you can see them using your shell account on
> master.debian.org and looking in the ~debian/archive/
> debian-private/ directory.

That's right. However, the Developers Reference is not a binding document,
merely a documentation of existing practice. When and if declassification
happens, whether by listmasters or by others, the devref will need updating.

Thanks for your feedback,
-- 
Nicolas Dandrimont

Dijkstra probably hates me
(Linus Torvalds, in kernel/sched.c)


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

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

[Don Armstrong]

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 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 Developers to object by GR prior to declassification.

3. In keeping with paragraph 3 of the Debian Social Contract, Debian
   Developers are strongly encouraged to use the debian-private mailing
   list only for discussions that should not be disclosed.

=== END GR TEXT ===

-- 
Don Armstrong  https://www.donarmstrong.com

Our days are precious, but we gladly see them going
If in their place we find a thing more precious growing
A rare, exotic plant, our gardener's heart delighting
A child whom we are teaching, a booklet we are writing
 -- Frederick Rükert _Wisdom of the Brahmans_ 
 [Hermann Hesse _Glass Bead Game_]


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

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

[Iain Lane]

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 Developers to object by GR prior to declassification.
 ^

This barrier is too high, IMO. I would prefer it if "by GR" were
removed, so that the listmasters can come up with their own procedure
with whatever objection method they think is appropriate.

(GRs are, of course, always going to be on the table regardless.)

-- 
Iain Lane  [ i...@orangesquash.org.uk ]
Debian Developer   [ la...@debian.org ]
Ubuntu Developer   [ la...@ubuntu.com ]


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

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

[Nicolas Dandrimont]

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 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 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 Developers to object by GR prior to declassification.
 ^
I don't think those words are necessary.

> 3. In keeping with paragraph 3 of the Debian Social Contract, Debian
>Developers are strongly encouraged to use the debian-private mailing
>list only for discussions that should not be disclosed.
> 
> === END GR TEXT ===

Thanks for clarifying,
-- 
Nicolas Dandrimont

BOFH excuse #449:
greenpeace free'd the mallocs


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

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

[Stefano Zacchiroli]

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 process which provides sufficient opportunity for
> >Debian Developers to object by GR prior to declassification.
>  ^
> 
> This barrier is too high, IMO. I would prefer it if "by GR" were
> removed, so that the listmasters can come up with their own procedure
> with whatever objection method they think is appropriate.
> 
> (GRs are, of course, always going to be on the table regardless.)

Right, so I'm not sure I understand your objection here. The only
process I can imagine that would *not* provide "sufficient opportunity"
as proposed by Don, is clicking a button that would immediately make all
the archives public, without any warning whatsoever. Any process that is
announced even just a few days before being enacted would certainly
match my barrier for "sufficient opportunity".

So can you maybe clarify your worry here?  (I'm asking because I'm
potentially interested in sponsoring Don's amendment.)

Many thanks in advance,
Cheers.
-- 
Stefano Zacchiroli  . . . . . . .  z...@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o
Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o
Former Debian Project Leader . . . . . @zacchiro . . . . o o o . . . o .
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

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

[Stefano Zacchiroli]

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 as saying that DDs should be able to object *to the process* via a
GR; whereas Nicolas (and possibly Iain) seem to be interpreting it as
saying that DDs should be able to object to individual declassification
actions via a GR.

I agree the latter would be very weird, also because it will potentially
result in public votes about private messages that are not disclosed in
the call for votes and the like.

Can you clarify which is which Don?

Cheers.
-- 
Stefano Zacchiroli  . . . . . . .  z...@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o
Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o
Former Debian Project Leader . . . . . @zacchiro . . . . o o o . . . o .
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

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

[Julien Cristau]

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 Developers to object by GR prior to declassification.
> 
I'm not sure I like restricting the opportunity to object to Debian
Developers.  Anything of historical interest is likely to involve people
who are no longer DDs at the time publication is considered, and they
should probably have a say.

Cheers,
Julien

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

[Iain Lane]

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 authorized to declassify excerpts of -private of historical
> > >interest by any process which provides sufficient opportunity for
> > >Debian Developers to object by GR prior to declassification.
> >  ^
> > 
> > This barrier is too high, IMO. I would prefer it if "by GR" were
> > removed, so that the listmasters can come up with their own procedure
> > with whatever objection method they think is appropriate.
> > 
> > (GRs are, of course, always going to be on the table regardless.)
> 
> Right, so I'm not sure I understand your objection here. The only
> process I can imagine that would *not* provide "sufficient opportunity"
> as proposed by Don, is clicking a button that would immediately make all
> the archives public, without any warning whatsoever. Any process that is
> announced even just a few days before being enacted would certainly
> match my barrier for "sufficient opportunity".
> 
> So can you maybe clarify your worry here?  (I'm asking because I'm
> potentially interested in sponsoring Don's amendment.)

Sure. Sorry if this is a bit like rules lawyering - I didn't anticipate
your reply. :)

The words "by GR prior to declassification" say, to me, that listmasters
are only allowed to come up with a procedure that allows DDs to object
by a GR, and not in some other way.

From what you're saying, I think you read it as saying that the
procedure *itself* is the thing which is presented and may be overturned
by a GR. I think that's reasonable - although I would hope that
discussion short of a GR would be enough.

Given your interpretation, and without getting too pedantic, maybe
something like the following is clearer (or maybe not).

  2. Debian listmasters and/or other individuals delegated by the DPL to
 do so are authorized to declassify excerpts of -private of
 historical interest. Before any declassification takes place, the
 procedure for declassifying posts must be published. This procedure
 must set out how affected individuals can object to specific
 declassifications, and it must be presented to the project with
 sufficient opportunity for discussion before any declassifications
 take place.

Cheers,

-- 
Iain Lane  [ i...@orangesquash.org.uk ]
Debian Developer   [ la...@debian.org ]
Ubuntu Developer   [ la...@ubuntu.com ]


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

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

[Russ Allbery]

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 be an ambiguity here. I am interpreting Don's
> text as saying that DDs should be able to object *to the process* via a
> GR; whereas Nicolas (and possibly Iain) seem to be interpreting it as
> saying that DDs should be able to object to individual declassification
> actions via a GR.

To datapoint, I interpreted it as the latter as well.

With the clarification that Don intended the former, I would second this.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   

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

[Don Armstrong]

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, 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 restrict the objection process to a GR, but to require
that a GR could occur.

On Sat, 16 Jul 2016, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Can you clarify which is which Don?

My intention was to ensure there was enough time and opportunity for
Developers to object before each declassification at minimum.

A public vote over potentially declassifying e-mails would be bad, but I
trust that listmaster@ or anyone who gets delegated by the DPL will
follow a procedure which addresses this issue before it gets to the
point that such a GR is required.

Perhaps the following adjustment:

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 [+ at minimum +] provides sufficient 
opportunity for
   Debian Developers to object by GR prior to declassification.

communicates this more effectively and addresses that concern?


-- 
Don Armstrong  https://www.donarmstrong.com

The beauty of the DRUNKENNESS subprogram was that you could move your
intoxication level up and down at will, instead of being caught on a
relentless down escalator to bargain basement philosophy and the
parking garage.
 -- Rudy von Bitter _Software_ p124