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

Re: *seconded* Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

* Anthony Towns (aj@azure.humbug.org.au) wrote:
> The reason for the N = {1,2} requirement is so that the buildds can be 
> maintained by Debian, which means that they can be promptly fixed for 
> system-wide problems, and which means access to them can be controlled, 
> rather than opening up users of that architecture to exploits should a 
> random disgruntled non-developer have access to the machine and decide 
> to abuse it, eg.
> >>- the Debian System Administrators (DSA) must be willing to support
> >> debian.org machine(s) of that architecture
> >I assume people can help with this too, or?
> Doing DSA work involves more than having root on a random box on the 
> internet. It's a specific task, not something that every developer is 
> already doing under a different title.

These two conflict to some extent I think.  Is there a reason to
disallow the possibility of having a DD who is part of DSA only to admin
a specific box and has no access on any others?  Perhaps 'DSA' wouldn't
be the appropriate term for that and the entry bar would be a bit lower.
I think there might be more willingness by otherwise busy people to help
out in this regard if they just have to worry about *their* machine.  I
think there'd be an increased sense of committment there too.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: