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