Re: Questions regarding the Security Secretary Position
Quoting Colin Phipps (firstname.lastname@example.org):
> 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
encrypted mail preferred. finger email@example.com for my GnuPG/PGP key.
Life is a sexually transmitted disease with 100% mortality.