| 1 |
On 12/4/18 4:41 AM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> Are you asking the Council to make a policy for security team, |
| 3 |
> or to override the existing policy of security team? Because this |
| 4 |
> sounds like you're implying that security team can't make up their mind. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
This is indeed part of the ongoing discussion surrounding the GLEP for |
| 7 |
the security team; Before anything should go to council on this we need |
| 8 |
to put the the current draft up for a public discussion on the -project |
| 9 |
mailing list. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Also, if the Council votes 'yes', what happens next? Does security |
| 13 |
> accept all stable arches? Do stable arches get demoted implicitly based |
| 14 |
> on security project considerations? |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
The assumption would be that security needs to have a say for whenever |
| 17 |
an arch is added or if requesting to remove an arch. To balance this a a |
| 18 |
GLEP48-style/QA-style lead approval process is added and criteria to be |
| 19 |
used for such determination is included. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Personally I don't see a problem with the status quo where security |
| 22 |
supported arches is listed as part of security project's documentation, |
| 23 |
and removals announced etc. The actual security implication for a lot of |
| 24 |
these arches will anyways be impacted by members of the team having |
| 25 |
limited knowledge of particulars, in particular when it come to auditing |
| 26 |
due to difference in assembly etc, so the major arches will anyways have |
| 27 |
a better foundation for being handled by the team, so security is |
| 28 |
relative to what we claim to know and do. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
In any case, too early for the council to do anything here. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Kristian Fiskerstrand |
| 34 |
OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net |
| 35 |
fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3 |
Archives