Re: [gentoo-project] Council meeting 2015-01-13: call for agenda items

[William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1507 bytes --]

On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 08:03:04AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 7:34 AM, Andreas K. Huettel
> <dilfridge@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> > For proposing agenda items and discussion of these, please reply to this mail
> > on the gentoo-project mailing list.
> >
> 
> I think that it is probably worth discussing what the right policy
> should be around allowing masked packages to remain in the tree (if
> they have a maintainer).  This would include packages with documented
> security flaws in the mask message, but it could also include other
> kinds of flaws.  If the maintainer wants to keep them around, should
> they be permitted to?  Are there any conditions on this, or is it
> maintainer-preference as long as it stays masked?
> 
> See:
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/94200
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/94199

(qa hat firmly in place)

I gave people several weeks to respond to the last rites and discuss
which packages should be kept. I will adjust my list based on their
responses.

That's the whole point of a last rites, to get people to step up and
take responsibility for packages. Also, this was cleared with the qa
lead before it was ever sent out.

So I am operating clearly within the scope of qa, since the job of QA is
to keep the tree in a consistent state for our users.

So with all respect, I don't understand why this even needs to be
escalated to the council.

Thanks,

William


[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]