Le Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 02:27:55PM +, Matthew Johnson a écrit :
>
> So far I don't think I've seen anyone objecting to the overall approach
> though, which is good. I think it allows us to start discussing more
> specific implementation details.
Dear Matthew,
there are so many discussions th
On Mon Mar 16 13:30, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> There are different kinds of packages in debian that require different
> skills:
>
> - binary packages, data packages
> - simple library packages
> - mixed binary/library/data packages
>
> Also there is a big difference between the NEW packages a
["Followup-To:" header set to gmane.linux.debian.devel.new-maintainer.]
On 2009-03-14, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> if you allow me to share a thought here even though I am not a developer
> and as such do not have any say in this.
>
> Matthew Johnson wrote:
>> My goals with changing the membe
"Giacomo A. Catenazzi" writes:
> Matthew Johnson wrote:
>> My goals with changing the membership procedures are:
>>
>> - To turn NM into a more evolutionary process where some privileges and
>>rights are granted earlier in the process and the qualifications for
>> the
>>late
Matthew Johnson wrote:
My goals with changing the membership procedures are:
- To turn NM into a more evolutionary process where some privileges and
rights are granted earlier in the process and the qualifications for
the
later parts are based mainly on the work done
Matthew Johnson writes:
> On Sat Mar 14 12:46, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> We can certainly expand the definition of technical work that qualifies
>> for political voting membership and not focus it solely on packaging,
>> but I think we're doing reasonably well with the basic assumption that
>> the p
Russ Allbery writes:
> Matthew Johnson writes:
>
> > - To decouple of technical and political positions in the membership
>
> For what it's worth, I disagree with this goal, assuming that I
> understand what you mean by it. I think that such a decoupling would
> be a significant change in how
On Sat Mar 14 19:11, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> if you allow me to share a thought here even though I am not a developer
> and as such do not have any say in this.
I certainly welcome thoughts from people involved in the project.
> While the aims you list themself may be laudable to achieve
> impro
On Sat Mar 14 12:46, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > - To decouple of technical and political positions in the membership
>
> We can certainly expand the definition of technical work that qualifies
> for political voting membership and not focus it solely on packaging, but
> I think we're doing reasonably
On Sat Mar 14 17:24, Enrico Zini wrote:
> However, we have had and do have several uncontroversially outstanding
> and very active people in need of an account, and they should be kicked
> *in*, and fast. As an AM I've seen a few, and inflicting a long NM
> process on them is a waste: their skil
* Micah Anderson:
> There are some companies that have had their 'bottom-line' demonstrably
> impacted in significant ways by open source and have undertaken various
> dubious mechanisms to destabilize and discredit open-source. Microsoft
> actually acknowledged to the SEC[0] in its required filin
Bernd Zeimetz writes:
> Micah Anderson wrote:
>> All of this is just fun wingnut ramblings, but I think serves to
>> illustrate that the artificial barrier imposed by the arduous NM
>> process is not that significant of a difficulty for getting inside
>> Debian and we cannot use this as mechanism
Matthew Johnson writes:
> My goals with changing the membership procedures are:
[...]
> - To decouple of technical and political positions in the membership
For what it's worth, I disagree with this goal, assuming that I understand
what you mean by it. I think that such a decoupling would be
On 14/03/09 at 19:11 +0100, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> if you allow me to share a thought here even though I am not a developer
> and as such do not have any say in this.
>
> Matthew Johnson wrote:
> > My goals with changing the membership procedures are:
> [... snip ...]
>
> While the aim
Hi,
if you allow me to share a thought here even though I am not a developer
and as such do not have any say in this.
Matthew Johnson wrote:
> My goals with changing the membership procedures are:
[... snip ...]
While the aims you list themself may be laudable to achieve
improvements, your *goal
Micah Anderson wrote:
> All of this is just fun wingnut ramblings, but I think serves to
> illustrate that the artificial barrier imposed by the arduous NM process
> is not that significant of a difficulty for getting inside Debian and we
> cannot use this as mechanism for making Debian "secure".
On Saturday 14 March 2009, Enrico Zini wrote:
> Yes, and there are cheaper ways than getting the black hat to become a
> full DD: with a thousand of DDs we have a thousand possibly vulnerable
> points of entry. Frankly, if anyone wanted to attack Debian, they'd
> have to be remarkably silly to pla
On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 04:25:21PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Saturday 14 March 2009, Micah Anderson wrote:
> > All of this is just fun wingnut ramblings, but I think serves to
> > illustrate that the artificial barrier imposed by the arduous NM
> > process is not that significant of a difficulty
On Saturday 14 March 2009, Micah Anderson wrote:
> All of this is just fun wingnut ramblings, but I think serves to
> illustrate that the artificial barrier imposed by the arduous NM
> process is not that significant of a difficulty for getting inside
> Debian and we cannot use this as mechanism fo
* Frans Pop [2009-03-14 09:25-0400]:
> On Saturday 14 March 2009, Leo 'costela' Antunes wrote:
> > IMHO that's a false notion of "security through laziness" :).
>
> Black hats are lazy too. They go after easy targets for maximum profit.
> Getting into Debian currently takes a certain amount of de
[still not subscribed to -newmaint, just keeping the cross-post]
Frans Pop wrote:
> On Saturday 14 March 2009, Leo 'costela' Antunes wrote:
>> IMHO that's a false notion of "security through laziness" :).
>
> Black hats are lazy too. They go after easy targets for maximum profit.
> Getting into D
On Saturday 14 March 2009, Leo 'costela' Antunes wrote:
> IMHO that's a false notion of "security through laziness" :).
Black hats are lazy too. They go after easy targets for maximum profit.
Getting into Debian currently takes a certain amount of demonstrated
dedication to the project through ac
[I'm only subscribed to -project, but keeping the cross-post]
Frans Pop wrote:
> The effort needed to go through the NM procedure also has an IMO import
> security aspect: it's quite unlikely that a "black hat" would be willing
> to make that effort to get in a position where (s)he could introdu
On Saturday 14 March 2009, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> Being part of the project, particularly with upload rights, is
> something I believe _should_ be difficult. This restriction on access
> to the archive is one of our strengths, it gives us a higher quality of
> packaging (yes, there are exceptions
24 matches
Mail list logo
