On Sat, Sep 3, 2022 at 10:01 PM Adam Williamson <adamwill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Look, I'm getting old, okay? ;) I am highly confident that everyone is getting older (with the possible exception being if your name is Benjamin Button). > But yeah, looking at that, one 'loophole' is it doesn't check if > they're actually needing *proven* packager powers - just packager > powers. If a proven packager is only building packages they have > explicit commit rights to, they may not need proven packager powers any > more? True enough, although I think if someone is actually active, and building multiple packages (even if they have gotten explicit commit rights (either before or after getting PP powers)), that we would probably need quite an extended time frame (2+ years) to determine with some confidence (to avoid undue annoyance emails) that they no longer appear to need that group membership. It would certainly be interesting to run a test to determine if any PP would fall into that category (and not the larger one of no builds at all) but I suspect that there would be a large number. btw, it would seem that a way for a PP to avoid the annoyance emails under your loophole closing would be to drop explicit commit rights and use PP privs on some package (the loophole bypass loophole defense?) _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
