I disagree. For many weeks now the submitter has answered the questions and made all of the corrective actions requested by the ARC on this case and now there is talk of derailing it? I don't think any architectural issues were found with the project. The documentation is weak, but the submitter has agreed to work with the open source group that owns it to address the doc issues.
The "auditable administration" question was answered already - there is no auditable interface for any PAM configuration files or any other files that are managed via "vi" (or whatever editor) for that matter. Discussions over how best to merge FOSS and ARC needs is something that should be discussed outside of this case. The project team has been playing fetch-a-rock for too long. The final specs have been submitted, I think Darren is planning on putting them in the case dir very soon. This case should be approved so the team can move ahead. -Wyllys Mark A. Carlson wrote: > Garrett, > > I see this kind of phrasing a lot lately. Let's go ahead and derail then. > Count me as "supportive of such action" as chair. > > -- mark > > Garrett D'Amore wrote: >> ... I don't feel strongly enough to derail on my own here, although I >> would be supportive of such an action if another member decided that >> was appropriate. >>
