| 1 |
On 03/12/2017 07:11 PM, Roy Bamford wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Why do Security Project members need to be ebuild devs? |
| 6 |
> Non ebuild developers can contribute by producing GLSAs, |
| 7 |
> for example. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Where is that requirement stated? |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Who manages the Security Project (from outside). It appears from |
| 13 |
> the draft GLEP, nobody. That means that the project could become |
| 14 |
> moribund and nobody would notice. Its not like Gentoo enforces |
| 15 |
> or even checks for leadership elections. That's an anual event |
| 16 |
> anyway, so its not a measure of a projects continued well being. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Imposing too much bureaucracy and reporting might not be worthwhile, the |
| 20 |
security project's work is relatively easy to monitor in bugzilla |
| 21 |
activity and GLSA publication to begin with, less so for auditing, but |
| 22 |
that has always been specific to available resources. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> This isn't really a Security Project issue. If its ever needed, the |
| 26 |
> Security Project isn't active. It affects other projects too, like |
| 27 |
> comrel, QA and others. Perhaps there is a common solution |
| 28 |
> to taking a proqcts pulse and reacting when there is none. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Talking with the lead of respective projects should be a good start |
| 32 |
without need for specific procedures. One could imagine participation |
| 33 |
from various special projects in council meetings or just email |
| 34 |
exchanges, but it'd likely just end up with a bunch of "nothing new from |
| 35 |
the western front" that can more easily just be updated informally |
| 36 |
anyways if anyone is concerned. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
Kristian Fiskerstrand |
| 40 |
OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net |
| 41 |
fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3 |
Archives