1 |
Brian Harring wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> Frankly I think you're exagerating here. |
4 |
> |
5 |
> You're seriously telling me it's going to cause you massive |
6 |
> adminstration nightmares adding an attribute to ldap to specify the |
7 |
> user comes in from a subdomain? Where's the nightmare in admining it? |
8 |
> It _should_ just be a setup cost. |
9 |
> |
10 |
> If that's not the case, I question your setup. |
11 |
|
12 |
There's far more things to worry about aside from ldap and email. I'm |
13 |
hoping to list them out soon, but I have other things I'm doing this |
14 |
weekend. |
15 |
|
16 |
> It's a crazy notion, but y'all could've commented in the *TWO* months |
17 |
> that this glep has been percolating, "yo, what do you want from an |
18 |
> infra standpoint?". |
19 |
> |
20 |
> Or implemented anoncvs in the meantime, thus nuking the main request |
21 |
> that's being made of infra. |
22 |
|
23 |
What was posted two months ago is not the same as was posted a day |
24 |
before the vote. I didn't see a problem with the original glep from an |
25 |
infra POV, thus why I didn't say much about it. |
26 |
|
27 |
> It is your guys responsibility to keep up to date on what's underway. |
28 |
> Portage devs do it, arches do it, infra is no different. |
29 |
> |
30 |
> That's why you're on this ml- that is why gleps get sent to this ml- so |
31 |
> that all of the various groups can weigh in. |
32 |
|
33 |
The revised GLEP in question was posted a day before the vote. I was |
34 |
watching it, though I didn't get a chance to read through the whole GLEP |
35 |
for the changes at the time since I was busy with real life issues. This |
36 |
is why I stated in an email [1] that day that they should postpone |
37 |
voting on it. |
38 |
|
39 |
[1] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=gentoo-dev&m=113199543120777&w=2 |
40 |
|
41 |
> So... infra can bitch, and have the council vote reversed? |
42 |
> |
43 |
> What about portage group, do we have the same power? QA? Devrel? |
44 |
> |
45 |
> Y'all haven't offered any input into this glep in the 2 months it's |
46 |
> been around. Further, *you* did see the glep, and didn't get off |
47 |
> your ass and state "hey guys, this has to be delayed- infra needs to |
48 |
> review it". |
49 |
|
50 |
See above [1]. I asked for them to hold on the vote and that did not happen. |
51 |
|
52 |
> You guys want the glep changed, either ask hparker and crew nicely, or |
53 |
> submit your own glep. You've had time to be involved, and you've |
54 |
> admitted you saw but did not even comment "we need to review this, |
55 |
> it must be delayed". |
56 |
|
57 |
Considering how the revised GLEP went through without ANY discussion |
58 |
prior to the vote, I don't see why we need to. That is an issue of the |
59 |
procedure used to to get this GLEP approved which wasn't done correctly. |
60 |
I have yet to see a valid reason for pushing ahead for the vote (and |
61 |
yes, I read the log.. see my comments in previous emails about that |
62 |
logic they used). |
63 |
|
64 |
> I see this mainly as infra/trustees not watching the ML. |
65 |
|
66 |
What does trustees have to do with this GLEP? And yes, I was watching |
67 |
the ML, but giving me 24hr to respond to a GLEP revision before a vote |
68 |
is not reasonable. |
69 |
|
70 |
> Frankly it seems like y'all didn't pay attention, and got caught with |
71 |
> your pants down. |
72 |
|
73 |
Thats not the case, we got a revised GLEP one day before the vote and |
74 |
didn't have a chance to reply reasonably. |
75 |
|
76 |
> Sucks, but too damn bad. |
77 |
|
78 |
I'm not going to reply to that. |
79 |
|
80 |
> And no... bitching about the window for the revision isn't really |
81 |
> valid, since the requested revisions to the glep from the council have |
82 |
> been known for a month already (again, more then reasonable time to |
83 |
> know what is afoot). |
84 |
|
85 |
Where was it stated that it was posted and was being discussed? Just |
86 |
because it was stated in a meeting log and was committed in cvs doesn't |
87 |
mean I need to read cvs changelogs. I expect the information about the |
88 |
GLEP i need to know about to be in the GLEP and that the revised GLEP to |
89 |
be sent with ample time before the meeting at hand. This was not done |
90 |
and this is why I'm frustrated with the situation. |
91 |
|
92 |
> As I already pointed out, the cvs issue klieber is beating over |
93 |
> everyone's head is missing the fact it's a suggested route- go |
94 |
> the standard ldap user route, and the issues disappear. |
95 |
|
96 |
We have yet to figure out how we're going to do this. |
97 |
|
98 |
> Email subdomain? Go through the channels everyone else has to. |
99 |
|
100 |
Huh? |
101 |
|
102 |
> Reversion is not an option from where I'm sitting, regardless of the |
103 |
> power infra wields over gentoo or how much y'all may dislike the glep. |
104 |
> Change it via the methods available, rather then the kicking/screaming. |
105 |
|
106 |
I'm not abusing our power, I'm simply pointing out the fallacy of the |
107 |
events that transpired. I feel that we should not have to implement |
108 |
something that was posted a day before the vote. I *was* watching the |
109 |
mailing lists and I *do* try and catch these things, and I *tried* to |
110 |
have them postpone the vote. But as you can tell, something was |
111 |
obviously out of sync communication wise because I didn't see this coming. |
112 |
|
113 |
> I'm going to keep my mouth shut on the backdoor comment, aside from |
114 |
> stating that's behaviour I hope to _never_ see out of a trustee again. |
115 |
> ~harring |
116 |
|
117 |
*sigh* You're taking what I'm saying way too personally. All I'm after |
118 |
is this vote to be properly reconsidered because of a mandate they |
119 |
accepted after they accepted this GLEP. I've already tried to figure out |
120 |
all the logistics of what they accepted, so I'm not doing the whole "i'm |
121 |
stomping my foot down on this and not doing it". |
122 |
|
123 |
-- |
124 |
Lance Albertson <ramereth@g.o> |
125 |
Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager |
126 |
|
127 |
--- |
128 |
GPG Public Key: <http://www.ramereth.net/lance.asc> |
129 |
Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1 4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742 |
130 |
|
131 |
ramereth/irc.freenode.net |