| 1 |
19.11.2005, 1:38:03, Grant Goodyear wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Incidentally, the benefit is to make users who are actively helping Gentoo |
| 4 |
> feel like they're part of the family. It was decided that a straight |
| 5 |
> @gentoo.org address would be confusing, though, since most people associate |
| 6 |
> those addresses with developers. I'm fairly agnostic on the whole thing, |
| 7 |
> myself, but since the Council voted to approve the GLEP, I was simply trying |
| 8 |
> to do my best to put forth a proposal that fit within that framework. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> -g2boojum- |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Uhm, no? Most people associate those addresses with people associated with |
| 13 |
Gentoo, perhaps? And, most people are not interested in internal Gentoo |
| 14 |
structure and workings, as well? |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Before deciding on such proposals, it might be also wise to consult infra |
| 17 |
people who'll have to implement and maintain such things, IMHO. And, how |
| 18 |
exactly will be people having multiple roles handled here - still missing a |
| 19 |
clear answer... |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I'm *not* against the concept of arch testers at all, in fact I find this idea pretty |
| 22 |
beneficial, but why do we need to complicate things and why do we need to |
| 23 |
create third-level domain emails for that? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
jakub |
Archives