> In that example the potential conflict of interest comes from the
> individual's
employment with the third party organisation, not because they are fellows.
Do you disagree with my contention that the OMC represents the project, and not
the fellows?
Regardless of where the conflict of
happen eventually.
>
>
> Pauli
> --
> Oracle
> Dr Paul Dale | Cryptographer | Network Security & Encryption
> Phone +61 7 3031 7217
> Oracle Australia
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Salz, Rich [mailto:rs...@akamai.com]
> Sent: Friday, 24 May 201
mp; Encryption
Phone +61 7 3031 7217
Oracle Australia
-Original Message-
From: Salz, Rich [mailto:rs...@akamai.com]
Sent: Friday, 24 May 2019 1:01 AM
To: openssl-project@openssl.org
Subject: Re: No two reviewers from same company
> I understand that OpenSSL is changing things so that,
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 03:45:48PM +0100, Matt Caswell wrote:
> IMO, no.
I also don't see a need for this at present, and it is not clear
that there are enough active part-time reviewers in place to keep
up with commits from the fellows in a timely manner.
--
Viktor.
On Thu, 23 May 2019 17:42:46 +0200,
Matt Caswell wrote:
>
> On 23/05/2019 16:31, Salz, Rich wrote:
> > > In private email, and
> > https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/8886#issuecomment-494624313 the
> > implication is that this was a policy.
> >
> > AFAIK this is not the case.
>
On 23/05/2019 18:14, Tomas Mraz wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-05-23 at 17:17 +0200, Richard Levitte wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 May 2019 16:25:07 +0200,
>> Salz, Rich wrote:
>>> I understand that OpenSSL is changing things so that, by mechanism
>>> (and maybe by policy although
>>> it’s not published yet), two
On Thu, 2019-05-23 at 17:17 +0200, Richard Levitte wrote:
> On Thu, 23 May 2019 16:25:07 +0200,
> Salz, Rich wrote:
> > I understand that OpenSSL is changing things so that, by mechanism
> > (and maybe by policy although
> > it’s not published yet), two members of the same company cannot
> > approv
On 23/05/2019 16:54, Salz, Rich wrote:
>> In that example the potential conflict of interest comes from the
>> individual's
> employment with the third party organisation, not because they are fellows.
>
> Do you disagree with my contention that the OMC represents the project, and
> not the fel
On 23/05/2019 16:31, Salz, Rich wrote:
> > In private email, and
> https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/8886#issuecomment-494624313 the
> implication is that this was a policy.
>
> AFAIK this is not the case.
>
> Is the comment wrong, either factually or because it is implemen
> In private email, and
https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/8886#issuecomment-494624313 the
implication is that this was a policy.
AFAIK this is not the case.
Is the comment wrong, either factually or because it is implementing something
that isn't an official policy?
> In
On 23/05/2019 16:01, Salz, Rich wrote:
> > I understand that OpenSSL is changing things so that, by mechanism (and
> maybe by
> > policy although it’s not published yet), two members of the same
> company cannot
> > approve the same PR. That’s great. (I never approved Akamai requ
> I understand that OpenSSL is changing things so that, by mechanism (and
maybe by
> policy although it’s not published yet), two members of the same company
cannot
> approve the same PR. That’s great. (I never approved Akamai requests
unless it
> was trivial back when I was on
On Thu, 23 May 2019 16:25:07 +0200,
Salz, Rich wrote:
> I understand that OpenSSL is changing things so that, by mechanism (and maybe
> by policy although
> it’s not published yet), two members of the same company cannot approve the
> same PR. That’s
> great. (I never approved Akamai requests u
On 23/05/2019 15:25, Salz, Rich wrote:
> I understand that OpenSSL is changing things so that, by mechanism (and maybe
> by
> policy although it’s not published yet), two members of the same company
> cannot
> approve the same PR. That’s great. (I never approved Akamai requests unless
> it
14 matches
Mail list logo
