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

Re: Work-needing packages report for Jul 11, 2003

On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 01:01:36AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 05:43:05PM -0600, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 10:51:56PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > 
> > > Someone who enters Debian is in a position to upload a package
> > > that could backdoor a very large number of machines. Attention to
> > > detail at the DAM stage is *more* important than pretty much any
> > > other decision making process in Debian. If the DAM fucks up even
> > > once, we lose massively.
> > 
> > There's that paranoia spectre again.  There is nothing that stops a
> > current DD from doing the exact same thing.  There is also nothing
> > to indicate that the above is DAM's reasoning for the extremely long
> > delays.  If an applicant isn't clearly trustworthy within 60-90 days
> > is another 9 months or more truly going to help?
> Okay, this is just broken reasoning. Nobody said they're being kept
> waiting until they're trustworthy, you just made that up.

If Mr. Garrett isn't talking about trustworthiness, what is he talking
about?  His post is specially concerning malicious and thus
unstrustworthy actions as far as I can see.  

I didn't say that people were currently being kept on hold to determine
their worthiness, I simply stated that if their worthiness could not be
adequately assertained within 60-90 days of being approved by their AM
to DAM, then perhaps their application should be denied or noted as
such.  This would be better than the current situation.

> The reason this thread is so messed up is because you keep injecting
> random insanity like this. 

Because I simply state the situation as it is from all public evidence
you call it "random insanity", that's rich.  Perhaps you haven't noticed
I'm not the only one that sees a serious problem with the current state
of affairs.

> Far more likely is the possibility that they are people who should be
> rejected, but the DAM _knows_ that trying to do so will engender a
> useless debate with dozens of people chipping in with "I don't know
> him or anything about him but I think he should be approved because
> .....".

If the DAM provides adequate documentation I highly doubt there would be
much uproar over application denials.  However, the DAM has yet to
respond at all.

> How could he know this? Well, that's what happened pretty much every
> time so far. Much easier to ignore them until they go away; it has the
> same effect in the end.

So far, the DAM doesn't appear to provide much if any documentation for
his reasoning.

Jamin W. Collins

Reply to: