Re: Third call for votes for the debian project leader election 2006
On 2006-04-06, Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 6 Apr 2006, Benj. Mako Hill told this:
>> <quote who="Steve Langasek" date="Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 02:30:46AM
>>> And maybe I'm too heavily steeped in Debian culture to take an
>>> objective view, but I don't see any reason why translators,
>>> documentation writers, artists, et al. should look at the term
>>> "developer" and conclude it's not for them.
>> First, none of these groups usually think of the work that they do
>> as development. That's just not he way the word is used. But that'a
>> semantic argument. The larger reason that this is a problem is
>> (1) We as a project (and an NM project) are hesitant to give these
>> people developership since it means they can upload to the
>> project which introduces a set of potential risks and problems
>> (one more account to compromise, etc).
> I'm sorry. If we can't trust these people not to abuse upload
> privileges, then I certainly do not want to see them get a say in
> deciding how we conduct the project's business.
By your argument, then the USA should give all its citizens access to
our nuclear arsenal, launch codes, etc. because we trust them to have
a say in deciding how the government is run.
> Eiether we trust them, in which case we should induct them in
> as full members, or we don't, and in that case they do not get to
There are many people in my organization that I trust completely, who
do not have root on our boxes. They dont have root because of a number
of very obvious reasons that have nothing to do with trust in other
Your rigid definition of trust = upload don't make sense to me. Yes,
you have to be trusted to be able to upload, but you dont have to have
upload abilities to be able to be trusted.