From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65E73138A1A for ; Wed, 7 Jan 2015 16:30:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1B47DE0877; Wed, 7 Jan 2015 16:30:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ob0-f180.google.com (mail-ob0-f180.google.com [209.85.214.180]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8E2FEE0876 for ; Wed, 7 Jan 2015 16:30:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ob0-f180.google.com with SMTP id wp4so3860408obc.11 for ; Wed, 07 Jan 2015 08:30:57 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to :references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=VEfl+RMxfUNmwGvR8EZK1lXbMmL8J8PJ98lBs7alyCw=; b=l+o8TGjg/uqnQT0YIdSAG+GKXPU+hLXeFaB4U6CoQtkuHXkufc+asbgzaMwfw29/PC /XsskSYALHB5XYH2X3UtM+CUHybr72if3rmQBEUW7FFqdPajCGuUQOdwGrrqLy2dyiDl qhUtJPH6GBvvDF9oc7qedZZXf/kEpGSnc1glFQnJlw/SgZk42G2C1UcGWfUnavoOr76p ShrLAMmlUyGxEXluSgbRuyMqLb/RDWetfWm7iGJLI7Zyh7LJRdYhlLsK14cdS7v1fVQH yDQQSjrU39BZBpBQU0XlrfO7JwphgmKtCWSRMPMx6ljixMM5KTkYkI0umv2M0Ba6qm/e tUsA== X-Received: by 10.182.28.99 with SMTP id a3mr2549430obh.79.1420648256982; Wed, 07 Jan 2015 08:30:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from linux1 (cpe-76-187-91-128.tx.res.rr.com. [76.187.91.128]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id v73sm1164161oie.19.2015.01.07.08.30.52 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 07 Jan 2015 08:30:53 -0800 (PST) Sender: William Hubbs Received: (nullmailer pid 7211 invoked by uid 1000); Wed, 07 Jan 2015 16:30:52 -0000 Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 10:30:52 -0600 From: William Hubbs To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Cc: rich0@gentoo.org, pinkbyte@gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Council meeting 2015-01-13: call for agenda items Message-ID: <20150107163052.GA7151@linux1> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org, rich0@gentoo.org, pinkbyte@gentoo.org References: <201412271334.34252.dilfridge@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="SLDf9lqlvOQaIe6s" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.22 (2013-10-16) X-Archives-Salt: f1915980-9a9a-4101-8c54-fa6315916cc7 X-Archives-Hash: a5c564dd9a35417cf2ca7a20f98a40ac --SLDf9lqlvOQaIe6s Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 > wrote: > > > > For proposing agenda items and discussion of these, please reply to thi= s mail > > on the gentoo-project mailing list. > > >=20 > 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? >=20 > 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 --SLDf9lqlvOQaIe6s Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iEYEARECAAYFAlStXzwACgkQblQW9DDEZTi0ZQCfVEfrELtos19xD86tOyqKmXD5 Z9MAmwRoxVZ0HhkqRp4eXAYTxFKR8tzZ =arH6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --SLDf9lqlvOQaIe6s--