| 1 |
Lance Albertson wrote: [Fri Nov 18 2005, 05:46:47PM CST] |
| 2 |
> Anyways, I don't see any problem with us giving them straight up |
| 3 |
> foo@g.o aliases. They won't have shell access, nor cvs so we |
| 4 |
> don't have to worry about that. This makes it very simple for us infra |
| 5 |
> folks to manage. I can only imagine the hell we'll create when someone |
| 6 |
> moves from staff.g.o to tester.g.o to g.o. I will not support any GLEP |
| 7 |
> that proposes any nonsense like that since its totally not needed. Yes, |
| 8 |
> I could have spoken up about this sooner, but I can't keep track of |
| 9 |
> every thread on -dev. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
I believe that the issue was that @g.o addresses generally denote a dev, |
| 12 |
and that giving such addresses to people who are not devs could cause |
| 13 |
confusion. For example, suppose we have a user who specializes in a |
| 14 |
particular imap server. If there were an urgent security issue, such a |
| 15 |
user might get a request to stable the package despite the fact that the |
| 16 |
person isn't a dev, which wouldn't serve anybody. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
A simpler method would be to ditch the idea of handing out e-mail |
| 19 |
addresses to users, no matter how much work they do for us, but that |
| 20 |
idea wasn't much more popular than any of the others. *Shrug* |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> I'm very disappointed that the council did not wait on the vote for this |
| 23 |
> considering the sudden submission of the revision of the GLEP. I'm |
| 24 |
> curious the reasoning for going ahead with this? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Have you read the log? It's fairly clear why they did it; they were |
| 27 |
being nice, because although I always intended the GLEP process to be |
| 28 |
iterative, with plenty of time for comments, I never put it in writing.. |
| 29 |
I personally think that it would have been better to hold off until next |
| 30 |
month, but it was a judgement call, and I don't think it was wholly |
| 31 |
unreasonable. The Council did go out of their way to emphasize that |
| 32 |
there should not be a repeat of this event. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-g2boojum- |
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
Grant Goodyear |
| 37 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 38 |
g2boojum@g.o |
| 39 |
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum |
| 40 |
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76 |
Archives