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 <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Rashif Ray Rahman <[email protected]> > 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. >
