blob: 72dc8d99322c25d1deeb801f9b84b7bbecf772a8 (
plain)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
|
\summary{2006}{3}{9}
\agendaitem{GLEP 44 - Manifest2 format after council recommended changes}
\index{Manifest!format 2}
Council members were generally in agreement that \glep{44} is a good idea,
and were happy with the changes that genone made to the document after the
last meeting.
\agendaitem{GLEP 42 - Critical News Reporting}
\index{news items}
Concil members decided that in order to vote on \glep{42}, an
implementation plan needed to be submitted with the glep. Generally, they
agreed that it's a good idea, but only if it's actually implemented.
Questions arose as to who will be doing the implementation work.
\agendaitem{Security bugs in the absence of an active maintainer}
\index{security!bugs}\index{package!dev-perl/LWP-UserAgent}
An interesting point of concern is what to do in the absence of an active
maintainer, with regards to security flaws in packages. An absent maintainer
in this sense is either one who is inattentive or one who is away/missing/gone
for some reason. Hopefully a future glep or thread will expand dsd's idea for
opening up the development community. Has anyone seen where the LWP-UserAgent
might have gone off to?
|
GitWeb
