On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 8:04 PM, Eric Waller <ewwaller@gmail.com> wrote:
I have tried to stay out of this in that I am not a TU and my input carries no official weight. I am, however, a moderator on the forums and a professional with significant experience in the field of trust, so I hope you give me some creed.
I find your argument to have no basis in fact and to be borderline libel. I have, throughout my career, had positions of trust with my government backed by sundry clearances. At present, I am in the credit card processing business, which has its only level of trust. I have watched Graysky for months. I have been an practicing engineer for more than 25 years, and have no reason to question his ability; If you do, so be it. His technical ability notwithstanding, I find your calling his trustworthiness in to question to be inappropriate and suspect it to be a red herring.
I assert you should provide evidence for your lack of trust in him, or you should apologize publicly..
Eric Waller
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Daniel Micay <danielmicay@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Rashif Ray Rahman <schiv@archlinux.org> wrote:
The current (majority) voting system is fine -- making decisions based on consensus agreement is not a suitable method for the TU selection process (it would needlessly raise the bar for something that is not a matter of public safety).
Trusting someone with the ability to push binary packages out to every Arch user seems like something that should have a pretty high bar. It's not just trust that they won't do anything malicious, it's trust that they'll look after their key and won't allow a situation where someone else would have access. They need to be able to work with the rest of the team and take responsibility for any mistakes they make.
I didn't call anyone's trustworthiness into question. I'm responding to schiv's statement that it's not a matter of safety.