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

Re: Questions regarding the Security Secretary Position


Quoting Colin Phipps (cph@netcraft.com):
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 07:12:57AM -0600, John Galt wrote:
> > 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.
Please read the thread first :)
mdz already noted that we already have two security secretaries.
A couple of members of the security team, including me, feel that the
person(s) to be appointed secretary should already _be_ developers.
Not that this all matters anymore, as the whole thing already has been


			      Linux Generation
   encrypted mail preferred. finger rvdm@debian.org for my GnuPG/PGP key.
	Life is a sexually transmitted disease with 100% mortality.

Reply to: