1 |
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 03:20:57PM -0600, Lance Albertson wrote: |
2 |
> Danny van Dyk wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
> > Please have a look at the council's meeting log. They said: |
5 |
> > a) the changes had been minor and exactly what the changes they wanted |
6 |
> > in in the first meeting. |
7 |
> |
8 |
> Minor? What you're asking for will cause a lot of administrative |
9 |
> nightmare for infra to manage those subdomain addresses among other |
10 |
> things. |
11 |
|
12 |
Frankly I think you're exagerating here. |
13 |
|
14 |
You're seriously telling me it's going to cause you massive |
15 |
adminstration nightmares adding an attribute to ldap to specify the |
16 |
user comes in from a subdomain? Where's the nightmare in admining it? |
17 |
It _should_ just be a setup cost. |
18 |
|
19 |
If that's not the case, I question your setup. |
20 |
|
21 |
> I would have preferred that the people involved with this could |
22 |
> have directly asked infra if this would work for us. That's a simple |
23 |
> request that I did not see from these folks. |
24 |
|
25 |
It's a crazy notion, but y'all could've commented in the *TWO* months |
26 |
that this glep has been percolating, "yo, what do you want from an |
27 |
infra standpoint?". |
28 |
|
29 |
Or implemented anoncvs in the meantime, thus nuking the main request |
30 |
that's being made of infra. |
31 |
|
32 |
|
33 |
> > b) they stated that this is the first and the last time that a GLEP will |
34 |
> > be voted on if that hasn't been discussed sufficiently long enough on -dev |
35 |
> |
36 |
> Good, so lets please fix this current GLEP before we implement it. I |
37 |
> don't like the answer of "they voted on it, so do it". To me, they voted |
38 |
> upon it without following their new mandate on discussion of GLEPs |
39 |
> before the meeting. The whole point of GLEPs is discussion to make sure |
40 |
> we don't make mistakes, especially if revisions were made. Just because |
41 |
> it follows the mandates of what the council wanted doesn't mean it |
42 |
> shouldn't be discussed again on -dev. I trust the council's decisions |
43 |
> and commonsense, but there still needs to be input from the masses to |
44 |
> ensure details are worked out BEFORE they are voted upon. |
45 |
> |
46 |
> Simply saying "we'll have a subdomain for new email addresses" without |
47 |
> asking infra about it first negates the vote in my eyes because we |
48 |
> weren't properly involved in the discussion process which was skipped |
49 |
> for the revision. We're the ones that will be put on the task to |
50 |
> implement it, yet never got any direct input from the people who wrote |
51 |
> this GLEP. |
52 |
|
53 |
It is your guys responsibility to keep up to date on what's underway. |
54 |
Portage devs do it, arches do it, infra is no different. |
55 |
|
56 |
That's why you're on this ml- that is why gleps get sent to this ml- so |
57 |
that all of the various groups can weigh in. |
58 |
|
59 |
|
60 |
> > c) that new limitations for a vote are: send (revised) glep to |
61 |
> > gentoo-dev (at least) 14 days before the next council meeting, ask (at |
62 |
> > least) 7 days before the meeting for vote. (For this you can also read |
63 |
> > seemants mail announcing the availability of the logs) |
64 |
> |
65 |
> Great, so lets negate the vote and do the right thing for this current |
66 |
> GLEP. I don't see the point of letting this one pass by especially since |
67 |
> the GLEP folks even said themselves they could wait. All I'm after is |
68 |
> doing this the right way instead of shoving it under a table and just |
69 |
> forcing the issue. I would prefer this be corrected as stated above with |
70 |
> proper discussion instead of saying that its already be decided on so do it. |
71 |
|
72 |
So... infra can bitch, and have the council vote reversed? |
73 |
|
74 |
What about portage group, do we have the same power? QA? Devrel? |
75 |
|
76 |
Y'all haven't offered any input into this glep in the 2 months it's |
77 |
been around. Further, *you* did see the glep, and didn't get off |
78 |
your ass and state "hey guys, this has to be delayed- infra needs to |
79 |
review it". |
80 |
|
81 |
You guys want the glep changed, either ask hparker and crew nicely, or |
82 |
submit your own glep. You've had time to be involved, and you've |
83 |
admitted you saw but did not even comment "we need to review this, |
84 |
it must be delayed". |
85 |
|
86 |
|
87 |
> Can some of the council members please comment on this? I'm curious |
88 |
> their thoughts on this. Maybe I'm just barking up the wrong tree, I just |
89 |
> see this as a terrible miscommunication between the GLEP authors, the |
90 |
> council, and infra. |
91 |
|
92 |
I see this mainly as infra/trustees not watching the ML. |
93 |
|
94 |
Lance, I know you try to keep up to date and involved. |
95 |
Corey thus far has made lovely accusations towards the council without even |
96 |
_reading_ the damn meeting log. We already know klieber didn't even |
97 |
know about the meeting log/summary that was sent to this ml (and |
98 |
kicked off this thread). |
99 |
|
100 |
Frankly it seems like y'all didn't pay attention, and got caught with |
101 |
your pants down. |
102 |
|
103 |
Sucks, but too damn bad. |
104 |
|
105 |
And no... bitching about the window for the revision isn't really |
106 |
valid, since the requested revisions to the glep from the council have |
107 |
been known for a month already (again, more then reasonable time to |
108 |
know what is afoot). |
109 |
|
110 |
|
111 |
> The council and GLEP authors were in line, but |
112 |
> weren't in line with infra. I would just like the vote to be |
113 |
> reconsidered or postponed until we properly come up with a logistical |
114 |
> solution that will work for infra. |
115 |
|
116 |
As I already pointed out, the cvs issue klieber is beating over |
117 |
everyone's head is missing the fact it's a suggested route- go |
118 |
the standard ldap user route, and the issues disappear. |
119 |
|
120 |
Email subdomain? Go through the channels everyone else has to. |
121 |
|
122 |
Reversion is not an option from where I'm sitting, regardless of the |
123 |
power infra wields over gentoo or how much y'all may dislike the glep. |
124 |
Change it via the methods available, rather then the kicking/screaming. |
125 |
|
126 |
I'm going to keep my mouth shut on the backdoor comment, aside from |
127 |
stating that's behaviour I hope to _never_ see out of a trustee again. |
128 |
~harring |