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

Re: Questions regarding the Security Secretary Position

On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 07:12:57AM -0600, John Galt wrote:
> On 21 Oct 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> >Martin Schulze <joey@finlandia.infodrom.north.de> writes:
> >
> >> Q: Is a requirement being a Debian developer?
> >> 
> >>    No.  It is my understanding that it would be good to have "fresh
> >>    blood" in the team.  Working on security can cost a lot of time,
> >>    thus it could even be helpful not being a Debian developer since
> >>    that implies active package maintenance as well.  However, similar
> >>    knowledge is very helpful, and may be required when working on
> >>    issues.
> >
> >I think the security secretary, if we have one, should be a Debian
> >developer.
> I take it then that you volunteer.  If not, shut up.  Throwing artifical 
> barriers at this office isn't going to add volunteers.

The "barriers" to becoming a developer are mainly commitment to the project and
to the social contract, both of which should be requirements for any security
secretary. It doesn't imply package maintenance (IIRC). Sure they don't have to
be a developer *yet*, but they should (either in fact or in effect) become one.
Which was what Thomas suggested.

Colin Phipps         PGP 0x689E463E     http://www.netcraft.com/

Reply to: