On Mon, 22 Oct 2001, Colin Phipps wrote: >On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 07:12:57AM -0600, John Galt wrote: >> On 21 Oct 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: >> >Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > >> >> Q: Is a requirement being a Debian developer? >> >> >> >> No. It is my understanding that it would be good to have "fresh >> >> blood" in the team. Working on security can cost a lot of time, >> >> thus it could even be helpful not being a Debian developer since >> >> that implies active package maintenance as well. However, similar >> >> knowledge is very helpful, and may be required when working on >> >> issues. >> > >> >I think the security secretary, if we have one, should be a Debian >> >developer. >> >> I take it then that you volunteer. If not, shut up. Throwing artifical >> barriers at this office isn't going to add volunteers. > >The "barriers" to becoming a developer are mainly commitment to the project and >to the social contract, both of which should be requirements for any security >secretary. It doesn't imply package maintenance (IIRC). Sure they don't have to
Actually, it does. >be a developer *yet*, but they should (either in fact or in effect) become one. >Which was what Thomas suggested. > -- Be Careful! I have a black belt in sna-fu! Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]