1 |
Grant Goodyear wrote: |
2 |
> Lance Albertson wrote: [Fri Nov 18 2005, 05:46:47PM CST] |
3 |
> |
4 |
>>Anyways, I don't see any problem with us giving them straight up |
5 |
>>foo@g.o aliases. They won't have shell access, nor cvs so we |
6 |
>>don't have to worry about that. This makes it very simple for us infra |
7 |
>>folks to manage. I can only imagine the hell we'll create when someone |
8 |
>>moves from staff.g.o to tester.g.o to g.o. I will not support any GLEP |
9 |
>>that proposes any nonsense like that since its totally not needed. Yes, |
10 |
>>I could have spoken up about this sooner, but I can't keep track of |
11 |
>>every thread on -dev. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> |
14 |
> I believe that the issue was that @g.o addresses generally denote a dev, |
15 |
> and that giving such addresses to people who are not devs could cause |
16 |
> confusion. For example, suppose we have a user who specializes in a |
17 |
> particular imap server. If there were an urgent security issue, such a |
18 |
> user might get a request to stable the package despite the fact that the |
19 |
> person isn't a dev, which wouldn't serve anybody. |
20 |
> |
21 |
> A simpler method would be to ditch the idea of handing out e-mail |
22 |
> addresses to users, no matter how much work they do for us, but that |
23 |
> idea wasn't much more popular than any of the others. *Shrug* |
24 |
|
25 |
I really don't see that example happening that much. If it does happen, |
26 |
we'd hope that if we gave these folks these types of rights, they would |
27 |
do the right thing and forward off the request to the correct group. |
28 |
We're all part of this organization whether we submit ebuilds, update |
29 |
documentation, or moderate the forums. If we include these folks into |
30 |
our family, I'd say we need to hold them up to those high of 'standards'. |
31 |
|
32 |
I just want to clarify that I'm not against giving them an email |
33 |
address, I'm against the administrative nightmare and system |
34 |
administration nightmare of maintaining a subset of email addresses. I |
35 |
would prefer to keep our infrastructure as simple as we can make it and |
36 |
I simply do not see splitting up a subdomain as a solution I would |
37 |
implement. |
38 |
|
39 |
It may look good on paper, but reality is totally different. |
40 |
|
41 |
>>I'm very disappointed that the council did not wait on the vote for this |
42 |
>>considering the sudden submission of the revision of the GLEP. I'm |
43 |
>>curious the reasoning for going ahead with this? |
44 |
> |
45 |
> |
46 |
> Have you read the log? It's fairly clear why they did it; they were |
47 |
> being nice, because although I always intended the GLEP process to be |
48 |
> iterative, with plenty of time for comments, I never put it in writing.. |
49 |
> I personally think that it would have been better to hold off until next |
50 |
> month, but it was a judgement call, and I don't think it was wholly |
51 |
> unreasonable. The Council did go out of their way to emphasize that |
52 |
> there should not be a repeat of this event. |
53 |
|
54 |
Sadly, no I haven't read the log (as I probably should have). Life has |
55 |
been pretty busy for me and reading hours of irc logs isn't exactly on |
56 |
the top of my list of things to do. I was planning on commenting on the |
57 |
revised GLEP, but I simply did not have adequate time to do so under the |
58 |
circumstances that happened. I want these folks to get the recognition |
59 |
they deserve, but I would have preferred more time to discuss the |
60 |
logistic details of their plan. If that were to have happened, I |
61 |
wouldn't be so annoyed about this whole thread. |
62 |
|
63 |
-- |
64 |
Lance Albertson <ramereth@g.o> |
65 |
Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager |
66 |
|
67 |
--- |
68 |
GPG Public Key: <http://www.ramereth.net/lance.asc> |
69 |
Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1 4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742 |
70 |
|
71 |
ramereth/irc.freenode.net |