Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
It's great when authors allow the public to review their work. This step
supports the community's confidence that his program is safe. If a small
fraction of users look at the code once in a while, that adds to the
community's confidence in the program.
I hope that's enough. It's enough for me.
If we don't trust others, and accept some division of labour, we would have
less time to put toward other things. The alternative is to use a lot of
time, for an abstract principle that probably isn't a problem in practice.
Free software prioritizes principle over convenience. Free software
adherents are closer to the "principle" end of the spectrum --as the FSF
might define "principle"-- than open source adherents, or proprietary
adherents.
I am glad that we have discussions like this one. I think it's great to
challenge how we do things, so that we can try to recognize our shortcomings.
quantumgravity suggests (quote below) that users would be more likely to
support our abstract principle, if they could do so conveniently (easily, and
quickly). I agree, and hope that capable people take up the cause.
"There is a strong need for mechanism that provides more transparency and
control for the users of precompiled free software, because very few users
can build really everything from source." - quantumgravity
