1 |
19.11.2005, 10:31:23, Thierry Carrez wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> Corey Shields wrote: |
4 |
|
5 |
>>>Before deciding on such proposals, it might be also wise to consult infra |
6 |
>>>people who'll have to implement and maintain such things, IMHO. And, how |
7 |
>>>exactly will be people having multiple roles handled here - still missing a |
8 |
>>>clear answer... |
9 |
>> |
10 |
>> Jakub++ Nobody in infra is on board with this idea, so you will be hard |
11 |
>> pressed to find someone willing to implement it. |
12 |
|
13 |
> What I find disturbing here is that nobody found the issue interesting |
14 |
> enough to read the October Council decisions as to what was needed to be |
15 |
> changed for the GLEP to be approved. But when, one month later, those |
16 |
> requirements have been met and the GLEP approved, lots of people |
17 |
> discover that the issue is interesting and complain about it (when it's |
18 |
> a little too late to be changed). |
19 |
|
20 |
Erm, what exactly could have been discussed, the revised GLEP being submitted |
21 |
about a day before the council meeting? Are you expecting people to hang on |
22 |
email 24/7? |
23 |
|
24 |
> I'm losing faith in Gentoo. When the GLEP was first discussed, the |
25 |
> general mood was that we shouldn't give ATs the same powers than we give |
26 |
> to devs (in particular, no right to vote for the Council), and in |
27 |
> consequence a need to tell them apart. The Council rejected the proposed |
28 |
> GLEP in that sense. Now, the mood is like the Council want to yellowstar |
29 |
> some part of our contributors... and the discussion happen on the same list. |
30 |
|
31 |
> You can't just ignore the discussion and the iterim decisions and |
32 |
> complain afterwards when the decision is taken. |
33 |
|
34 |
I've already mentioned that I don't oppose to AT concept and making them |
35 |
official Gentoo stuff (and a couple of people did that as well), but drawing |
36 |
the distinction around an email address, resulting in troubles for |
37 |
infrastructure and hassle for users/other devs has not been properly considered |
38 |
apparently; still waiting for someone to show a single benefit of such an |
39 |
arrangement. |
40 |
|
41 |
Email address is a means of communication with people, not a *power*. If |
42 |
anyone's interested in/does care for what's the exact role of that particular |
43 |
person in Gentoo, that's what roll-call is for. AT or not, any person w/ |
44 |
@gentoo.org email address is representing Gentoo, users don't care what's the |
45 |
difference between ATs, forums staff and full devs and I don't see why exactly |
46 |
they should even care. Users also don't care if someone has CVS commit privs or |
47 |
voting rights. These are internal Gentoo things, email address is not playing |
48 |
any role in that. |
49 |
|
50 |
Now, we might we perhaps move the focus to more important issues jstubbs |
51 |
mentioned in his last email, expecting that any implementation of the now |
52 |
approved GLEP wrt the email addresses won't be pushed in a similar way the |
53 |
whole revised GLEP has been, until infra issues and usefulness of this are |
54 |
sorted out/reconsidered at least. |
55 |
|
56 |
|
57 |
-- |
58 |
|
59 |
jakub |