Signing for fedora-announce with fedora-list (was Infrastructure status, 2008-08-16 UTC 1530)
Bruno Wolff III
bruno at wolff.to
Thu Aug 21 20:36:25 UTC 2008
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 14:17:13 -0400,
max <maximilianbianco at gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes I would have to agree, its actually in the best interests of
> everyone that they do get covered. I don't like being kept in the dark
> anymore than the rest but I don't think its unreasonable to do what can
> be done i.e. use the tools available to make a determination if your
What they did seems unreasonable to me. There is no reason I can think of
that should have prevented them for explaining what was going on in general.
If someone's account was compromized and they didn't know if any of the
distributed rpms were trojaned, then that's what they should have said.
The way it has been handled is not appropiate for an open project and I expect
things to be handled much more openly the next time something similar happens.
Just because people didn't know the full extent of the problem doesn't
excuse them from letting the community know what was going on and in general
More information about the users