On Sat, Mar 05, 2005 at 08:48:21AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 01:59:16PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > > Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> writes: > > > > > I have some real trouble with the fact that all the work i do for debian is > > > reported to the US secret services or whatever by the ftp-masters and our > > > archive handling services, and i certainly did *NOT* agree to this being the > > > case. > > > > What are you talking about? Debian prohibits anonymous developers, > > always has; for the longest time this was the only real restriction on > > joining Debian: you had to find a few other Debian developers to > > verify you had a real ID. > > Yep, but there is a difference between the information being available, > and it being actively feeded to the NSA or whoever. The NSA subscribing to d-d-changes would also mean we are actively feeding information to them. And the info doesn't get sent to the NSA, as has been mentioned whenever you come up with this paranoid claptrap. > And it is especially bothering if this cause undue delay in our normal > activities, like aj is saying it is. WTF? I must have missed that one. So far, I've only seen aj mention that packages that are troublesome but not grossly rejectable tend to hang around in the queue. I can't imagine that sending a quick e-mail to the BXA is the holdup. > Furthermore, sure there are no anonymous debian developer, but still the real > identity is known only to debian, so theoretically we could hide it from the > outside if we wanted. This makes no sense. Do you propose that we replace the name and e-mail address of every DD in every location where they exist (mailing lists, package control files, and so on) with a pseudonym and e-mail alias? Not to mention the fact that we're trying to increase transparency, not hand out secret rings to DDs and swear them to secrecy... - Matt
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature