Re: Question to candidates that signed the Vancouver plan as candidate DPL
Joey Hess <email@example.com> wrote:
> Bill Allombert wrote:
>> The Vancouver plan has several mention of the security team which lead
>> to believe it was accomodated to address the concern of this team.
> Er, let's quote every mention of "security" in Steve's mail:
> joey@dragon:~>wget -q -O - http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/03/msg00012.html | grep -i security | sed 's/^/# /' | re-add-some-missing context | manual-annotations 3< /dev/joey/brain
> # update, deploying the testing-security queues has been held up
> # queues for testing-security. This week, Andreas Barth and Ryan Murray
> # to handle the addition of testing-security queues. Once this happens,
> # the testing-security configuration should itself be completed for all
> # architectures in quick succession, with the result that testing-security
> All of the above refers only to the testing-security queue for sarge.
> AFAIK the only involvment of the security team with that queue is that
> they require said queue to exist at release time so they can easily
> "support 20 architectures". Anyway, no mentions of the security team
You are right with counting words, and Bill is wrong when he says the
team was mentioned "several" times. But since there was no rationale
for the criteria put on release arches, people tried to find some; and
security support was one of them.
The interesting question still is: Do the DPL candidates think it is in
order that such a plan is designed without consulting the security team?
Did they know it wasn't consulted? etc.
> Yet another possibility of course is that the four words "and the security
> team" were added to the draft for whatever reason and escaped the notice of
> everyone who reviewed the document because we didn't expect it to be subject
> to this kind of rather useless deconstruction.
If it escaped the prospective DPLs, that also shows something.
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich