1 |
On Mon, 2018-12-03 at 19:16 -0500, Aaron Bauman wrote: |
2 |
> > On 25.11.2018 15:31, Mart Raudsepp wrote: |
3 |
> > > In two weeks from now, there will be a council meeting again. Now is |
4 |
> > > the time to raise and prepare agenda items that you want us to discuss |
5 |
> > > and/or vote upon. |
6 |
> > > |
7 |
> > > Please respond to this message on the gentoo-project mailing list with |
8 |
> > > agenda items. |
9 |
> > > The final agenda will be sent out on 2018-12-02, so please make sure |
10 |
> > > you post any agenda items before that, or we may not be able to |
11 |
> > > accommodate it into the next meeting. |
12 |
> > > |
13 |
> > > The meeting itself will happen on 2018-12-09 19:00 UTC [1] in the |
14 |
> > > #gentoo-council FreeNode IRC channel. |
15 |
> > > |
16 |
> > > |
17 |
> > > 1. https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?iso=20181209T19 |
18 |
> > > |
19 |
> > > |
20 |
> > > Thanks, |
21 |
> > > Mart Raudsepp |
22 |
> |
23 |
> I would like to propose, once again, that the council vote on the |
24 |
> following items: |
25 |
> |
26 |
> 1. The council approves all architectures that are maintained as stable |
27 |
> architectures. |
28 |
> - e.g. alpha, amd64, arm, arm64, ia64, ppc, ppc64, and x86. |
29 |
> |
30 |
> Conversely, the council also may remove/drop such architectures as |
31 |
> needed (c.f. item 2). |
32 |
|
33 |
What happens if Council votes 'no' to this item? Do all arches become |
34 |
unstable? |
35 |
|
36 |
Don't introduce votes for confirming status quo because they make no |
37 |
sense. If there's a specific change you're proposing, propose it |
38 |
and be specific so that people can discuss it ahead of time. |
39 |
|
40 |
> 2. The council approves that all stable architectures are subsequently |
41 |
> determined to be security supported. Thus, an architecture may not be |
42 |
> stable and *not* security supported. This disparity has implications in |
43 |
> processes and timeliness of actions taken to mitigate vulnerabilities |
44 |
> reported. |
45 |
> - e.g. amd64 is approved as stable arch and thus is security supported. |
46 |
> - e.g. arm is dropped as a stable arch thus is no longer security supported. |
47 |
> |
48 |
> Overall, both of these items will provide a much clearer understanding |
49 |
> of how security is able to proceed with mitigating vulnerabilities in |
50 |
> the tree, how users view and understand what architectures are stable |
51 |
> and security supported, and allow the security team and maintainers a |
52 |
> clearer/cleaner process to follow. |
53 |
> |
54 |
|
55 |
Are you asking the Council to make a policy for security team, |
56 |
or to override the existing policy of security team? Because this |
57 |
sounds like you're implying that security team can't make up their mind. |
58 |
|
59 |
Also, if the Council votes 'yes', what happens next? Does security |
60 |
accept all stable arches? Do stable arches get demoted implicitly based |
61 |
on security project considerations? |
62 |
|
63 |
-- |
64 |
Best regards, |
65 |
Michał Górny |