| 1 |
Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 08:05:40PM +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>>On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 19:40:59 +0000 Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> |
| 5 |
>>wrote: |
| 6 |
>>| there's no point in bringing it back to the council in the current |
| 7 |
>>| form as we're just likely to approve it again |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>>So the council is aware of all the shortcomings and impossibilities |
| 10 |
>>with the GLEP in its current form, and would still approve it? |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> we were happy with the state of things with the GLEP in its current |
| 14 |
> state. if others are not, then fix the GLEP and send it back. theres |
| 15 |
> no point in trying to get the council to "fix" the GLEP when we were |
| 16 |
> for the current changes (such as the e-mail domains idea). |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
You're happy even after all the discussion and points we made AFTER it |
| 19 |
was voted upon? I still find it outrageous that it went through with the |
| 20 |
revised GLEP being posted a day BEFORE the vote. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I think we'll be able to work out the anonymous CVS access soon, however |
| 23 |
it will not be implemented as stated in the GLEP. It will be synced |
| 24 |
every 30 minutes and no user accounts will be issued. The ATs that |
| 25 |
responded on the list felt that this would be an 'OK' route to go. I do |
| 26 |
not want to add 50-100 people onto our primary CVS server for the only |
| 27 |
reason of having anonymous cvs access. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
On the other point, infra has serious issues trying to manage a |
| 30 |
subdomain for email addresses. This part of the GLEP we cannot |
| 31 |
implement and we ask the GLEP authors to come up with a better solution. |
| 32 |
Either we give them an alias that recruiters can manage, or we don't do |
| 33 |
anything. The logistical headache of managing moving people around is |
| 34 |
too much of a hassle for us to deal with. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Of course, all of these points would have made it into the GLEP *if* it |
| 37 |
had been posted with plenty of time for people to comment on it instead |
| 38 |
of one day. I do not feel that improper planning on their part should |
| 39 |
have let the GLEP get approved in the first place. No matter if all the |
| 40 |
council members thought it was ok, not giving any of the other |
| 41 |
developers proper time to respond to the GLEP is not a good decision. |
| 42 |
That's just asking me to scream 'cabal!' ;-) (even though I know that |
| 43 |
wasn't the case at all). |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
-- |
| 46 |
Lance Albertson <ramereth@g.o> |
| 47 |
Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
--- |
| 50 |
GPG Public Key: <http://www.ramereth.net/lance.asc> |
| 51 |
Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1 4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742 |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
ramereth/irc.freenode.net |
Archives