Hi, Quoting Colin Phipps ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 07:12:57AM -0600, John Galt wrote: > > 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 be a developer *yet*, but they should (either in fact or in > effect) become one. > Which was what Thomas suggested. Please read the thread first :) mdz already noted that we already have two security secretaries. A couple of members of the security team, including me, feel that the person(s) to be appointed secretary should already _be_ developers. Not that this all matters anymore, as the whole thing already has been resolved.
Greets, Robert -- Linux Generation encrypted mail preferred. finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for my GnuPG/PGP key. Life is a sexually transmitted disease with 100% mortality.