NightStrike <nightstr...@gmail.com> writes: > On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 7:39 AM, David Edelsohn <dje....@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 12:10 AM, NightStrike <nightstr...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Ian had confidence in me. He also liked the proposal I set for how to >>> go about it. >> >> So who actually said no? >> >> David >> > > The Frederic guy didn't like my fake-looking fake name, and wanted a > real-looking-but-just-as-fake name, or he wouldn't create a sourceware > account for me. He then ignored my followup emails asking for > clarification. > > You guys need to realize how online identities work in this century.
The overseers as a whole were not comfortable giving an account to somebody who was not willing to provide his real name. I concurred in that decision. Giving somebody a shell account on gcc.gnu.org means giving them a very high level of trust. There are quite a few people who could translate a shell account on gcc.gnu.org into a number of difficult-to-detect attacks on the entire FLOSS infrastructure, including the kernel, the source code control systems, etc. It's hard for us to get to the required level of trust in somebody whom we have never met and who won't provide any real world contact information. NightStrike, thanks for volunteering, and thanks for being honest about the name issue rather than simply making something up. I'm sorry that it won't work out. Manu, I have no problem supporting you in implementing a Bugzilla upgrade if you are still interested. I think one of the unfortunate causes of the lack of response to volunteers is that PR 43011 was, sensibly enough, filed against the gcc repository, but was not CC'ed to overse...@gcc.gnu.org. I would like to encourage our bugmasters to consider CC'ing overseers for issues related to infrastructure. Ian
