On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 11:23:32AM +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote: > Ah. To me, that is quite a bit of the missing piece of information on why > you feel this GR is needed. To me the GR sounds very much wishy-washy, > kind of 'let's appoint some people who might then do some work.' With what > you say here, I can see the motivation for this GR. Also, it becomes > clearer as it's apparently not clear whether the security team are > delegates - I assumed they were (and feel they should be). > Maybe - is it time to clear this issue now? Well, this would not be "skipping over" worrying about the delegation question, as Anthony suggests. The only point I see in establishing that existing security team members are delegates is if you plan for the DPL to rescind their delegate status (or threaten to, I guess). That doesn't strike me as a very good method of helping Debian do better at security updates. > Back to the topic at hand: Can't Joeyh, Steve and Micah just be added to > the security team[1] Er... there's quite a difference in scope between "talk to the security team about existing processes and try to help identify possible improvements" and "sit on the security team". I sure haven't agreed to the second, and I don't think a GR (or unilateral delegation) is a particularly good way to choose members for a *team*, either. And for your third option of having the security team invite new members in, that doesn't exactly help us identify a course of action if the security team *doesn't* do this? -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature