[aur-general] TU application from graysky - voting period

[Daniel Micay]

On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 8:04 PM, Eric Waller <ewwaller at 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 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Rashif Ray Rahman <schiv at 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.