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 <email@example.com> 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
>> 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? firstname.lastname@example.org