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

2016-08-09 Thread David Kalnischkies
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

Not A GR Proposal: merge debian-private into debian-curiosa

2016-08-09 Thread Enrico Zini
Hello, There are two lists in Debian without a clear topic: debian-private and debian-curiosa, and the only difference between the two lists is on who can subscribe to them and whether they are publicly archived. Since point 3 of the Social Contract says "We will not hide problems", it can be arg

Re: more GRs to come (Re: Current GRs clarification)

2016-08-09 Thread Axel Beckert
Hi, Holger Levsen wrote: > 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 debian-

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

2016-08-09 Thread Kurt Roeckx
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

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

2016-08-09 Thread Nick Phillips
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

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

2016-08-09 Thread David Kalnischkies
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

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

2016-08-09 Thread David Kalnischkies
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

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

2016-08-09 Thread Didier 'OdyX' Raboud
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