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

Re: Bits from the ftpmasters

On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 12:55:39PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Joel Aelwyn <fenton@debian.org> writes:
> > On Sun, Feb 20, 2005 at 09:06:36PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> >> - uploads to NEW need an advocate in addition to the normal signature
> >>...
> > Hmmm. Seems like it could work, but might still have the issue that finding
> > two maintainers who think something is good is not vastly more difficult
> > than finding one; also, many packages are already co-maintained, would you
> > allow co-maints to both sign it? I believe it *is* possible to get multiple
> > signatures with GnuPG (the same way you can encrypt something to multiple
> > keys), but I'd have to go dig through the docs to figure out how to do it.
> When talking about a more automated NEW queue people said that
> ftp-master checks package names and splits for sensibility and rejects
> quite a few of those because they are silly. Having 2 people think
> about it should reduce that somewhat (not as much as a NEW team though).
> It's a simple 4 eyes see more than 2 solution. So co-maintained both
> signig should be ok, it's still 4 eyes, 2 brains, half an IQ :)

Indeed; I think co-maint is good for precisely this reason (as well as
not having a single point of failure if a DD goes on vacation or has life
events nail them). I just don't know that it would be sufficient to really
be much of a filter on the NEW queue (though if the experience of the
ftpmaster team is that a huge number of the packages that take more than
$small_time to deal with are things that would probably be caught by a
second set of eyes, hey, great).

It's also not exclusive to the other proposal, conveniently. :)

> >> - a NEW team
> >>... 
> >...
> > 3) Doesn't (as far as I can see offhand) require access to sensitive
> > accounts, key signatures, or software. Thus, someone who processes NEW as
> > a "generate recommendations for ftpmaster" can do the job without needing
> > much, if any, in the way of privileged access (possibly some issues with
> > crypto, but those should be easily resolveable).
> You need access to the NEW queue. But if I'm not misinformed any DD
> can get to the mirror on merkel?
> If not, an inofficial NEW queue could be setup by someone, uploads to
> there could be judged and then put into the real queue with a
> recommendation mail. Whether or not ftp-master would find that usefull
> or not is another question (and they have to answere that).

As noted, I don't *think* this requires any privileged access, but not
having done it, I can't say for certain. It seems highly likely that A)
it requires less than full-bore ftpmaster, and B) if it requires privs of
some sort, they could probably be granted separately from the rest, thus
allowing a lower bar to entry than needing to be proven capable of handling
"Not only could you upload trojans to $BIGNUM Debian user installations,
but you could utterly break the entire distribution, or subtly compromise
the archive and eradicate most of your tracks".

Reducing the required trust for a position (so long as that doesn't cripple
those doing the position, of course!) is generally a good thing...

> >...
> >
> > Not that I expect, given how this and past conversations have gone, that
> > they'd particularly want to deal with me, but if a NEW processing group is
> > considered worthwhile, consider me volunteered to put in the time. Maybe
> > the work is suitable revenge for having to read or delete so many of my
> > emails.
> Maybe you could make contact with ftp-master and ask their opinion. I
> doubt they would want a non DD running the show.

I could, and if I had any indication it wouldn't just annoy folks, at this
point, I would. I suspect a third party who hasn't aggravated at least one
of them within the past couple of days might have better luck, though...
nor is it the first time I've annoyed someone involved. Whether you think
it was worth it or not, it means that I may not be the best representative
for trying to convince people to make a change that *will* cost them at
least the time of reviewing the proposal.

I have some hope that the various folks who have a better rapport will be
able to bring it up as a useful discussion, probably in private given the
current situation. But it seemed rude to say "Yeah, great idea!" and not at
least offer to put my time where my mouth is.
Joel Aelwyn <fenton@debian.org>                                       ,''`.
                                                                     : :' :
                                                                     `. `'

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: