Let's just split this discussion, and continue with the discussion-in-NOTE issue here.
> i think NOTEs are a somewhat reasonable place to discuss conflicts of > opinion because it is centralized, connected to the issue at hand, and > the people that triage security issues will come across the > discussion/philosophy, have to think about it, and make a decision. > and finally, it's easy enough to change the text once that decision > is made. > > however, if the consensus is that this is bad, then i will stop. > ultimately, perhaps the core problem here is that the security tracker > provides no means to allow dissenting/conflicting opinion. I don't think this is a problem. The security tracker is indeed not the place to have discussions, or to register dissenting opinions. It's intended to document the outcome of the discussions (if any): what is the current state and what action needs to be taken? Taking the 'no-dsa' issue: either there's going to be a DSA, or there's not going to be a DSA. That fact can be debated just fine on our mailinglists or in a relevant bug. Those means provide much better overviews and space for who thinks what, to respond to arguments etc. In the end there has to be a conclusion, we do either this or that. That conclusion/decision will be documented in the tracker. > note that > dissenting opinions in US Supreme Court decisions are just as important I cannot envision any security issue that would be comparable to a supreme court case, nor can I even begin to think that we are operating even remotely like a "supreme court". Thijs
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Secure-testing-team mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/secure-testing-team
