1 |
On 1/31/19 5:35 PM, Alec Warner wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> My main problem with the GLEP is that it seems to propose a WoT for |
4 |
> a WoT's sake and my question then becomes "why do we need a WoT?" |
5 |
> |
6 |
> As in, what does a WoT enable the project to do that it cannot do |
7 |
> now? |
8 |
|
9 |
There are multiple aspects to this, and I'm only commenting the way I |
10 |
see it here. |
11 |
|
12 |
being part of the WoT allows external parties to find a trust path to |
13 |
gentoo developers, e.g when it comes to relying on communication in |
14 |
various channels. This part could also be solved by infra running a |
15 |
Gentoo Developer CA that signs all developers' Transferable Public Key |
16 |
(TSP, aka public key). |
17 |
|
18 |
More generally, being part of the WoT can demonstrate participation in |
19 |
various developer communities. A user that is involved in various |
20 |
upstream projects and familiar with them already can potentially be more |
21 |
valuable as a developer for Gentoo, and can also potentially be a factor |
22 |
for reduced tension between developers as they have demonstrated being |
23 |
part of other communities already. |
24 |
|
25 |
In addition comes a better certainty about the UID used for copyright in |
26 |
signed-off-by, we as a distribution rely on this for both developers and |
27 |
external contributors, and we need to demonstrate that we have taken |
28 |
reasonable measures to ensure that what we add is unencumbered. |
29 |
|
30 |
-- |
31 |
Kristian Fiskerstrand |
32 |
OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net |
33 |
fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3 |