[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: sponsor rules

On Tue, Jul 17, 2001 at 02:26:01PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2001 at 10:46:23AM +0200, Joost Kooij wrote:
> > > If the damage is bad enough, a lot of his Debian maintainer peers will start
> > > to look down at him/her as a moron. That's bad enough for most people.
> > 
> > When a rgistered developer sanctions a package upload, then that implies
> > taking responsibility for the package uploaded, I agree.  But I wish you
> > good luck in reminding the cats about their responsibilities.  Do mind
> > that most cats do not like to sit on your lap if you stare at them.
> > Please don't propose more formalisms that only cloud the view of things.
> Ahem, I don't see that formalism you are talking about. Getting sponsors
> to pay attention in order not to get ridiculed later is a Good Thing (TM).
> Most people will pay attention if we make it clear in the documentation.
> Those who don't follow the documentation are hopeless anyway.

Sure, anything to improve the quality of the distribution.  I just don't
see the need for special ways and means to ridicule misbehaving(TM)
maintainers.  We have the bts, and its intent is to fix the bugs, not
to ridicule lax maintainers. 

> > It is also neither reasonable nor fair to offload the security problems
> > onto the sponsoring practice wholesale.
> I don't see anyone doing that. The point is that latent dangers in our
> packages are bad enough, no need to make it worse with badly sponsored
> packages.

When people are talking about the holes in debian security that the 
sponsoring creates, without giving proper regard to similar holes,
then they are doing that, implicitly.  IMHO.  YMMV.



Reply to: