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. Cheers, aj
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature