| 1 |
On 21/12/2012 17:16, Peter Stuge wrote: |
| 2 |
> Leave the account but simply block access. One example implementation |
| 3 |
> is to move the SSH key to another location, and have a lightweight |
| 4 |
> method to move it back in place, with an absolute minimum of human |
| 5 |
> interaction and required time. Done. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
I love how people always suggest 5-minutes fixes without understanding |
| 8 |
anything behind what they would like to fix/improve. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Hint: Gentoo Infra does not use ~/.ssh/authorized_keys. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
It's not to say that the proposal to limit access doesn't make sense, |
| 13 |
but ... |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> If someone has at some point contributed to Gentoo then why not let |
| 16 |
> them keep their user around, should they want to come back. Of course |
| 17 |
> this doesn't work retroactively, but I think it would be a cool tip |
| 18 |
> of the hat to current and future developers. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
... the users generally are kept, and locked, but also one of the things |
| 21 |
that is done is archiving their home directory on dev.g.o as it might be |
| 22 |
taking quite an amount of space. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
But besides, as others said, one of the main concern is making sure that |
| 25 |
the developers are up to speed with current procedures, which is why |
| 26 |
they are requested to go through the quizzes again — although this |
| 27 |
usually ends up being quite simple. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
I get to speak about that as somebody who retired, and was then |
| 30 |
re-instated. Going through the cycles was less bothersome than just |
| 31 |
growing the motivation to get back to Gentoo, so I can't see the point. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes |
| 35 |
flameeyes@×××××××××.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/ |
Archives