Re: NM non-process
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 10:54:43PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 10:41:37PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> > the person who's in charge of the keyring has to be as paranoid as
> > James. The other person in the project that comes to mind is
> > Manoj. And that's it. I wouldn't trust Martin with such a
> > responsability, and I don't care how many votes he got, trust is
> > not something you win by election.
>
> Sorry but this argument sounds like utter bullshit to me. How do we
> know James is keeping people out of the keyring in order to prevent
> them from uploading rogue packages?
Is this more of your usual attempt at humor? Because, as usual, I'm
not laughing.
Of course James can't prevent people from uploading rogue packages
(even if peole could argue he's trying to, I mean, he's DAM _and_
keymaster _and_ ftpmaster), but I didn't say that, did I?
I have memory of a couple of cases when James has refused to add (or
update) a key to the keyring for reasons which people have gone on
record as calling "silly" or "paranoic". Trivialities such as people
refusing to disclose their real names jump to mind. Or people coming
up with inventive protocols for "identifying" persons a couple of
thousand kilometers away... If you find joy in digging the mail
archives, be my guest.
If you don't like the fact that I openly say I wouldn't trust Martin at
that position, tough. That doesn't justify your feeble attempt to
derail the discussion.
> What proof do we have that methods employed by him will actually have
> any bearing whatsoever on whether someone does something evil?
And here I have to wonder what exactly you mean by "methods".
I can't say that my relation with James is or has ever been rosy, I
have disagreed more than once with him, but between being lax in order
to keep everyone happy, and erring on the side of caution, I prefer the
person in his to position to do the later, and he incidentally does.
> I fail to see how holding gobs of people indefinitely can be
> singlehandedly excused with paranoia without any real evidence to
> even support the claim. It seems like blatant handwaving to me. Take
> that as you will.
Go look up handwaving in the dictionary. Now look at what you wrote.
--
Marcelo
Reply to: