Fridge Editors: Expiring Membership

[Craig A. Eddy]

Matthew,

This doesn't appear to me to be quite what you think.  I see this as a
means of pruning out those who are no longer active (or wish to be
active) as Fridge editors.  Many teams end up accumulating such dross as
people move to different interests.  Also, Joey isn't in quite the same
position as an ordinary member of a team, as he works for Canonical.

Craig
Tyche

Matthew East wrote:
> Hi Joey,
>
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 4:43 PM, Joey Stanford <joey at canonical.com> wrote:
>   
>> Hi,
>>
>>     
>>>> Isn't this the sort of statement that should be made as a result of
>>>> discussion and consensus in the team?
>>>>         
>> In my view, absolutely not, which is why I went forward with it as the
>> team owner in LP. Â If the Fridge was not hosted on Canonical servers
>> then it wouldn't matter to me as much as it does now. Â If something
>> where to happen to the Fridge, I would be the one held responsible.
>>     
>
> There is quite a lot which I find objectionable in this statement.
> First, the concept of ownership is never a particularly healthy one to
> bring out in conversations like this. It has an unfortunate "top down"
> flavour that does not sit well with a community. In the Ubuntu
> community, people don't actually "own" teams. Second, while I can
> quite see that a team would be responsible for the content of a server
> that is provided to it by Canonical, and I can also see that a team
> can and should work with the Canonical sysadmins to overcome any
> particular security concerns, it's not correct to say that an
> individual has personal responsibility for a security vulnerability if
> one occurs.
>
> (Not that this change relates in any way to a real security
> vulnerability, it's just a question of making sure the list of
> Launchpad members is an up to date reflection of who wishes to
> continue to participate in the team. I don't think anyone is
> suggesting that any of the current unexpired team members represent a
> threat to security.)
>
>   
>> Frankly I cannot understand anyone who thinks that normal security
>> precautions which have absolutely no bearing on participating can
>> think this needs to be decided in a committee.
>>     
>
> But this does have an affect on participation. It is a change in the
> policy for membership in the team. And this is a community team.
>
> As I said, I agree with the actual proposal. I just would have
> preferred that it had been framed as a proposal.
>
>