Re: infrastructure team rules (second edit)
On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 04:43:09PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> If the team is functional, why would we even consider someone/something else
> deciding it? Revoking the teams' right to decide their own membership would
> go against all recorded history (AFAIR), so one could question whether that
> kind of a change is done in good faith.
I was under the impression that recorded history proves that this does
not work and is prone to all kinds of abuse.
Then Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> What's the alternative? Letting anyone in who wants, even if the
> rest of the team distrusts them?
An alternative is full oversight by an external body. Another
alternative is saying that we explicitly trust all DDs for all
privileged positions, and expelling any DD who has proven unworthy of
trust. Reviewing http://www.debian.org/intro/organization , I see
people who would fall into such a category. I suppose that "recorded
history" rules out this option as well. Another alternative is to
do away with privileged positions altogether and give all DDs access
to everything.
> Don't break the whole system, just because you're unhappy with a specific
> symptom (DSA), that's not going to work.
I am unhappy with DSA, ftpmaster, tech-ctte, the release team(s), the
buildd admins, listmaster, the BTS admins, the Policy delegates, and
others. Do these fall within what you perceive as the un-broken system?
Reply to: