1 |
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 03:06:41PM -0800, Corey Shields wrote: |
2 |
> On Saturday 19 November 2005 02:19 pm, Brian Harring wrote: |
3 |
> > > Minor? What you're asking for will cause a lot of administrative |
4 |
> > > nightmare for infra to manage those subdomain addresses among other |
5 |
> > > things. |
6 |
> > |
7 |
> > Frankly I think you're exagerating here. |
8 |
> |
9 |
> What about the end-user headache of having to change subscriptions/bugzilla |
10 |
> accounts/aliases/etc. from username@××××××××××××××××.org to |
11 |
> username@g.o should they turn dev? |
12 |
|
13 |
Same rules that already are forced upon devs when they make the |
14 |
change. |
15 |
|
16 |
It's not really an AT specific issue. Bugzie changes are handled by |
17 |
the devrel monkey who is converting the user over, ml, the user has to |
18 |
do the re-subscribe on their own. |
19 |
|
20 |
If you're after changing that process, hell, that would be nice, but |
21 |
it's a global issue, not AT specific. |
22 |
|
23 |
It's not a blocker for AT's, since it's a global issue. |
24 |
|
25 |
|
26 |
> > It's a crazy notion, but y'all could've commented in the *TWO* months |
27 |
> > that this glep has been percolating, "yo, what do you want from an |
28 |
> > infra standpoint?". |
29 |
> |
30 |
> Yeah, my bad.. Had I known that infrastructure implementation decisions could |
31 |
> be decided by a GLEP with no infra input requested, I would have paid |
32 |
> attention. |
33 |
> |
34 |
> Besides, when I first read the glep "*TWO* months ago" there was nothing about |
35 |
> email subdomains.. It was fine.. Therefore, I did not comment. |
36 |
|
37 |
See email in response to lance. Two months is applicable for the cvs |
38 |
requirements... |
39 |
|
40 |
|
41 |
> > I see this mainly as infra/trustees not watching the ML. |
42 |
> |
43 |
> Foundation has nothing to do with this issue whatsoever. |
44 |
|
45 |
Strangely, my mentioning of it is related to my (perhaps crazy?) view |
46 |
that trustees should be watching what's going on with gentoo- the main |
47 |
comment in the email is that at least the changes were known for a |
48 |
month via the managers meeting is where the issue comes in. You |
49 |
*should* be following the council's actions in my opinon. |
50 |
|
51 |
Perhaps my view is flawed/stupid, but y'all are the stewards of |
52 |
gentoo. I expect you guys to be rarely surprised by proposed changes. |
53 |
|
54 |
|
55 |
> > Sucks, but too damn bad. |
56 |
> |
57 |
> So will be finding help from infra to implement this with that attitude. |
58 |
> You're not helping the situation, Brian.. |
59 |
|
60 |
Kind of took that one out of context- the comment is in regards to |
61 |
waiting till after something occurs to start complaining about it. |
62 |
|
63 |
Subdomain complaints, fine, I'm not even going to argue that one at |
64 |
this point, the actual cvs enabling, you should've known it was |
65 |
coming- being surprised by it sucks, but so does trying to revert it |
66 |
because it surprised you. |
67 |
|
68 |
|
69 |
> I corrected my wrong in this thread, |
70 |
> but I still feel that the lack of delay between the changes and the vote was |
71 |
> not enough for devs to comment (specifically Lance). I don't care if I am a |
72 |
> trustee or not, that's wrong. After your last email, I don't think you are |
73 |
> in any position to comment on behaviour. ;) |
74 |
|
75 |
Still stand by the email, surprisingly. |
76 |
|
77 |
Thing is, you haven't corrected 'your wrong', and if you had just |
78 |
*stated* the concern from above, rather then |
79 |
|
80 |
"Lesson learned, make friends with a majority of the council, write |
81 |
and propose a glep the day before a meeting and then push it |
82 |
through. wow. sounds a lot like American politics." |
83 |
|
84 |
I wouldn't be pointing to it as abhorrent behaviour that is cabal |
85 |
fodder. |
86 |
|
87 |
Baseless accusations don't usually result in people liking what you're |
88 |
saying, even if you retracted the "council members voting on stuff they |
89 |
didn't know about" claim. |
90 |
|
91 |
If you can't see that, well I'll shut up on the point (others have already |
92 |
pointed out it was a bs statement). |
93 |
~harring |