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

Re: Stable security support

On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 08:54:36AM +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> Problem with a GR: it doesn't get any work done.

Right; that's not the intention of the GR though -- the intention is
to authorise people to do the work. I've done all I feel I'm within my
rights to (and in fact slightly more than that) in providing access to
security.d.o to some of the testing-security team. While I could try
doing more than that, and possibly succeed thanks to my tyranny over
Unix permissions, I don't particularly want to provide any substance to
accusations of coups and whatever else.

There are problems with the other people who could potentially overrule
the security team's preferences; the DPL is only to withdraw delegations,
not actually help with working out how delegates should act; and the tech
ctte usually avoids questions that aren't of the form "how sould this
piece of sotfware work?" There's also the question of whether the security
team are delegates -- and while there's more to that than there seems at
first glance, it seems like it'd be good to skip over worrying about it.

I don't know if it carries more or less weight having me say it, but
I think it's entirely appropriate to cut Branden a lot of slack in not
trying to come in as DPL and "fix" this.

> Scenario I:
>  * some people see something needs doing
>  * 200+ thread on d-d
>  * some (other) people are ready to do the work
>  * the work is done.
> Scenario II:
> like the above, but there is a delay of several weeks while a GR confirms 
> that the work needs doing.

I doubt there's going to be much happening between now and New Year; so
holding a GR over that time wouldn't provide much of a delay.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: