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
> debian
Hi Kurt,
thanks for these clarifications!
On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 11:06:03PM +0200, Debian Project Secretary - Kurt
Roeckx wrote:
> GR about declassifying debian-private
> =
>
> There are 2 options on the ballot:
> - Choice 1: Allow declassifying parts of deb
On 08/08/2016 03:34 PM, Holger Levsen wrote:
> I expressed my surprise about a missing third option ("depeal the GR
> of 2005 and burry the idea of systematically declassifying
> debian-private") on #debian-private and have learned there that this
> seems to have been an oversight / others agree th
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
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 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 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 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
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
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
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
11 matches
Mail list logo
