On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 00:36:57 -0400 bill-auger <bill-auger@peers.community> wrote: > i did not intend to be so specific about the infra, such as to > own all hardware and operate all services - there is no criteria > about SaaSS, for example - i only meant that the distro should > be able to fix bugs and freedom issues in any portion of the > distro, at any time - to do that, requires controlling what gets > built and published [...] > it would not significantly alter the review process - there > should be no need to scrutinize the infra, beyond determining > that the distro maintainers can control what gets built and > published
If the goal is to make sure that the distribution can fix things, then it's probably better to require exactly that, instead of requiring a specific way to do it (self hosting the infrastructure). And to have the exact implementation be an implementation detail that can be reviewed, discussed and so on. And as you pointed in another mail, that's already covered as in an "actively maintained" criteria. Denis.
pgp9bGmbyo1ZV.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
