| 1 |
The only reason any of this is coming up is because some wanted to keep the |
| 2 |
.g.org addresses to the developer staff. If the CVS access is read only and |
| 3 |
they are working for gentoo what difference would it make? This would sort |
| 4 |
out the AT and forums question in one swoop. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
George |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
On 11/19/05, Grant Goodyear <g2boojum@g.o> wrote: |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Lance Albertson wrote: [Fri Nov 18 2005, 05:46:47PM CST] |
| 11 |
> > Anyways, I don't see any problem with us giving them straight up |
| 12 |
> > foo@g.o aliases. They won't have shell access, nor cvs so we |
| 13 |
> > don't have to worry about that. This makes it very simple for us infra |
| 14 |
> > folks to manage. I can only imagine the hell we'll create when someone |
| 15 |
> > moves from staff.g.o to tester.g.o to g.o. I will not support any GLEP |
| 16 |
> > that proposes any nonsense like that since its totally not needed. Yes, |
| 17 |
> > I could have spoken up about this sooner, but I can't keep track of |
| 18 |
> > every thread on -dev. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> I believe that the issue was that @g.o addresses generally denote a dev, |
| 21 |
> and that giving such addresses to people who are not devs could cause |
| 22 |
> confusion. For example, suppose we have a user who specializes in a |
| 23 |
> particular imap server. If there were an urgent security issue, such a |
| 24 |
> user might get a request to stable the package despite the fact that the |
| 25 |
> person isn't a dev, which wouldn't serve anybody. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> A simpler method would be to ditch the idea of handing out e-mail |
| 28 |
> addresses to users, no matter how much work they do for us, but that |
| 29 |
> idea wasn't much more popular than any of the others. *Shrug* |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> > I'm very disappointed that the council did not wait on the vote for this |
| 32 |
> > considering the sudden submission of the revision of the GLEP. I'm |
| 33 |
> > curious the reasoning for going ahead with this? |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> Have you read the log? It's fairly clear why they did it; they were |
| 36 |
> being nice, because although I always intended the GLEP process to be |
| 37 |
> iterative, with plenty of time for comments, I never put it in writing.. |
| 38 |
> I personally think that it would have been better to hold off until next |
| 39 |
> month, but it was a judgement call, and I don't think it was wholly |
| 40 |
> unreasonable. The Council did go out of their way to emphasize that |
| 41 |
> there should not be a repeat of this event. |
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
> -g2boojum- |
| 44 |
> -- |
| 45 |
> Grant Goodyear |
| 46 |
> Gentoo Developer |
| 47 |
> g2boojum@g.o |
| 48 |
> http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum |
| 49 |
> GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76 |
| 50 |
> |
| 51 |
> |
| 52 |
> |
Archives