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
> app
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 s
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 revoca
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 contrib
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 voic
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
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 list
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
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 mes
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, and that means that a
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 di
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 debian-priv
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
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 pas
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 w
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 post
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 is allowing the
> >
* 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 mailing list was
> > use
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 actu
* 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 16.07.2016 um 23:06 schrieb
-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
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 amendment:
> >
>
* 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 -private of historical
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 am
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 -priva
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 t
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, Debia
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
> foll
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 listmasters and/or other ind
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 and
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 and/or
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
* 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 delegated by the DPL t
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 listmas
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 part
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 "Declassific
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 restric
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, Nicol
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 h
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 authori
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 Develo
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 a
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
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 prop
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 Devel
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
46 matches
Mail list logo
