1 |
Thierry Carrez <koon@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> Grant Goodyear wrote: |
3 |
> > Corey Shields wrote: [Fri Nov 18 2005, 10:42:30PM CST] |
4 |
> > |
5 |
> >>Still screwed up. Lesson learned, make friends with a majority of the |
6 |
> >>council, write and propose a glep the day before a meeting and then push it |
7 |
> >>through. wow. sounds a lot like American politics. |
8 |
> > |
9 |
> > That's quite an indictment. You've skipped right past the notion that |
10 |
> > perhaps a mistake was made to accuse the Council of cronyism. |
11 |
|
12 |
Everybody reading the council-transcripts would eventually agree that |
13 |
the GLEP was properly discussed. The rejection of the GLEP first time |
14 |
was part of the conspiracy too, i spose? |
15 |
|
16 |
Come on. I do agree that timing and communication was bad. However i |
17 |
happened to ping hparker just a few days before the vote came up and |
18 |
he pointed me to the svn changelog stating that the revised GLEP was |
19 |
waiting there happily. |
20 |
|
21 |
So in fact it was *not* a failure of a revised GLEP but a post to -dev. |
22 |
|
23 |
> [...] |
24 |
> So we took the median way, accept that GLEP with those changes nobody |
25 |
> complained about, and create policy so that such things won't happen |
26 |
> in the future. Apparently we were wrong on two accounts : |
27 |
|
28 |
Taking the median way angers both extremes. But i regard the councils |
29 |
decision as the least of 3 evils. |
30 |
|
31 |
> - There were people that don't have an opinion on the subject but were |
32 |
> watching the council for its first bad step to be able to accuse it of |
33 |
> abuse of power or worse |
34 |
|
35 |
Seeing this actually happen has driven me nuts. Hey, where's the spirit? |
36 |
When i came in, i learned about finding the best technical solution to a |
37 |
given problem. However with this hick-hack my respect for a few |
38 |
developers has experienced a sharp decline. |
39 |
|
40 |
> I won't stand (mostly) alone defending the Council handling of the |
41 |
> problem, we were just trying to find the most acceptable solution, which |
42 |
> is what we were elected for. Let the vocal minority reverse that |
43 |
> decision, I no longer care. |
44 |
|
45 |
:( |
46 |
Wake up! We are having a 90+ thread about a email subdomain issue |
47 |
turning into council bashing. What the heck?! This is a plea for sanity. |
48 |
Please stick to the facts and lets find the best solution for this IMO |
49 |
awfully little problem. |
50 |
|
51 |
So more to the facts. |
52 |
As a AT, the main point in having a @<something>g.o adress is, that |
53 |
you're easily recognized. Email from and to devs and fellow AT/HTs is |
54 |
spotted faster and priorized accordingly. (The same applys to IRC, IMHO) |
55 |
|
56 |
Infra has made it clear that anything other then <something>==NULL will |
57 |
be a pain in the ass. I agree with that point. Given that two arguments, |
58 |
i'll go with the @g.o adress. |
59 |
|
60 |
But please, if there's a majority of devs disagreeing: every AT, who's |
61 |
spoken up here said that they don't care about the adress. So do i. |
62 |
Email is just a tiny bit of the GLEP and IMHO the least important. |
63 |
However the main idea was the tree access and i'm really looking forward |
64 |
to see that implemented. |
65 |
|
66 |
Regards, |
67 |
Matti |