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

Re: Questions regarding the Security Secretary Position

On Mon, 22 Oct 2001, Colin Phipps wrote:

>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

Actually, it does.  

>be a developer *yet*, but they should (either in fact or in effect) become one.
>Which was what Thomas suggested.


Be Careful! I have a black belt in sna-fu!

Who is John Galt?  galt@inconnu.isu.edu

Reply to: