Re: *seconded* Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 01:55:47PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> I can understand these concerns, and they are valid; but there are
> better ways to tackle them. Requiring that the machines are owned and
> hosted by Debian Developers, rather than random non-developers, for
> example, could be a better idea than to impose some arbitrary
> restriction that has no real value; buildd hosts don't necessarily need
> to be part of the debian.org network to be able to do what they need to
How many *.debian.org machines are actually *owned* by the project or DDs?
If you're serious, those machines donated by companies should be excluded as
well. Otherwise I could register a small company and donate my machines
again. Same situation like years ago, just with a small bureaucratic trick.