1 |
Brian Harring wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
>>What was posted two months ago is not the same as was posted a day |
4 |
>>before the vote. I didn't see a problem with the original glep from an |
5 |
>>infra POV, thus why I didn't say much about it. |
6 |
> |
7 |
> |
8 |
> Email wise, you're right- the basic issue of anoncvs/cvs ro access for |
9 |
> ATs however has been in the glep from the beginning (regardless of the |
10 |
> glep having a minimal req tacked into it). |
11 |
|
12 |
Where have I disputed the cvs ro access? |
13 |
|
14 |
> That said, the subdomain bit has been available since the oct council |
15 |
> meeting. Not something that was particularly sprung, although grounds |
16 |
> for arguing that it wasn't pushed out in the best manner. |
17 |
> |
18 |
> That still doesn't address my point about the basic need of the glep, |
19 |
> anoncvs/cvs ro being known. |
20 |
|
21 |
See above |
22 |
|
23 |
>>The revised GLEP in question was posted a day before the vote. I was |
24 |
>>watching it, though I didn't get a chance to read through the whole GLEP |
25 |
>>for the changes at the time since I was busy with real life issues. This |
26 |
>>is why I stated in an email [1] that day that they should postpone |
27 |
>>voting on it. |
28 |
>>[1] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=gentoo-dev&m=113199543120777&w=2 |
29 |
> |
30 |
> |
31 |
> Reading through it, it reads more like a comment about the process. |
32 |
> It's also not an explicit request that it be delayed, which I'll |
33 |
> assume is just me misreading it. |
34 |
|
35 |
Solar even mentioned it DURING the meeting to hold on the vote. But |
36 |
everyone else thought that everything was covered and passing it |
37 |
wouldn't cause a problem (which was incorrect). |
38 |
|
39 |
> Said hole has been closed; what I'm stating is that y'all should work |
40 |
> through what's available rather then a forced re-vote. See tail end |
41 |
> of email for reasoning. |
42 |
|
43 |
The hole was closed after they decided on the GLEP. That doesn't make |
44 |
sense. Why make a rule for it while ignoring the current situation at |
45 |
hand? This GLEP was the whole reason they added that stipulation, and it |
46 |
made no sense to me why they didn't apply it to this GLEP they voted |
47 |
upon. They have the power to do it if it out of common sense. |
48 |
|
49 |
>>What does trustees have to do with this GLEP? And yes, I was watching |
50 |
>>the ML, but giving me 24hr to respond to a GLEP revision before a vote |
51 |
>>is not reasonable. |
52 |
> |
53 |
> |
54 |
> Knowing what the revisions where going to be (previous meeting) makes |
55 |
> the 24 hour comment a bit off. |
56 |
|
57 |
To me, those revisions should be stated in the GLEP. I shouldn't be |
58 |
expected to look for GLEP changes in a meeting log. If I want to know |
59 |
what changed to the GLEP, I look at the glep. And yes, I could have |
60 |
probably looked on the GLEP site for that, but that doesn't explain why |
61 |
it was pushed in without proper -dev discussion. |
62 |
|
63 |
> Email is about the only snafu out of this whole thing that is |
64 |
> reasonably questionable imo. Concerns about load on lark, handling |
65 |
> the new users, etc, no, as I stated, this glep has been around for 2 |
66 |
> months without infra asking what's required. |
67 |
|
68 |
Its hard to sift through hundreds of emails a day to try and find things |
69 |
like this. I expect things I need to be aware of to be labeled well or |
70 |
in a proper place. And yes, we probably could/should have said something |
71 |
about lark earlier, but didn't catch that before hand. |
72 |
|
73 |
> That's the crux of the "caught with the pants down". The fact that |
74 |
> the initial glep could've passed, and still there would be |
75 |
> complaints/issues brought up (beyond email concerns) afterwards |
76 |
> because people didn't pay attention. |
77 |
|
78 |
Most likely, see above. |
79 |
|
80 |
>>>Sucks, but too damn bad. |
81 |
>> |
82 |
>>I'm not going to reply to that. |
83 |
> |
84 |
> Probably wise, since it wasn't a friendly jab on my part (for which I |
85 |
> should be duly flogged). |
86 |
|
87 |
I was rather disappointed in the unprofessional ism of that comment. |
88 |
|
89 |
>>Where was it stated that it was posted and was being discussed? Just |
90 |
>>because it was stated in a meeting log and was committed in cvs doesn't |
91 |
>>mean I need to read cvs changelogs. I expect the information about the |
92 |
>>GLEP i need to know about to be in the GLEP and that the revised GLEP to |
93 |
>>be sent with ample time before the meeting at hand. This was not done |
94 |
>>and this is why I'm frustrated with the situation. |
95 |
> |
96 |
> |
97 |
> Again.. aside from email, the info's been out there. |
98 |
|
99 |
I read email more that checking up on cvs or the site. If its something |
100 |
important, it should be posted on -dev for discussion with proper time |
101 |
involved. I admit, I could have looked up the glep. |
102 |
|
103 |
> Specifically reverting/changing a glep. See glep1 for actual process, |
104 |
> or nudge glep41 authors to revise and get council to sign off on it |
105 |
> (that chunk is somewhat unspecified procedure wise). |
106 |
|
107 |
After we sort out details on our end, I might do that. |
108 |
|
109 |
> re-read it, not implying you are, what I'm stating is that no _group_ |
110 |
> should have the ability to effectively force the council to |
111 |
> revert/revote on a decision. Doing so means the council loses the |
112 |
> ability to have issues passed up to it, and have it agreed upon gentoo |
113 |
> wide, and have people actually move forward on something. |
114 |
> |
115 |
> Portage shouldn't have it, nor devrel, nor QA, nor infra (obviously my |
116 |
> opinion). |
117 |
> |
118 |
> And yes, I'm well aware some day a brain dead glep may get forced |
119 |
> onto the portage group, in which case feel free to taunt me with those |
120 |
> words. I'll still stand by my statement from above, despite whatever |
121 |
> nasty thoughts may be running through my head. :) |
122 |
|
123 |
We're all busy, and we're all prone to miss details of happenings that |
124 |
go on. If infra is going to need to implement something, I would prefer |
125 |
the folks involved to either email us directly, or come in our channel |
126 |
talk with with us directly about their proposal. I know I could have |
127 |
followed the email/glep to get this information, but as you have seen, |
128 |
we have busy lives outside of Gentoo and can't keep up with everything. |
129 |
The proper thing for them to do would ask us directly about the proposal |
130 |
instead of just assuming we watch every single flame email we see on -dev. |
131 |
|
132 |
> *again*, beyond email concerns, the issues y'all are bringing up |
133 |
> weren't sprung on you. anoncvs/cvs ro access has been known for quite |
134 |
> some time. |
135 |
|
136 |
See above |
137 |
|
138 |
> Restating the point, the changes were known for a freaking month prior |
139 |
> to the vote. |
140 |
> |
141 |
> It's not out of the blue, nor is the cvs ro requirement. |
142 |
|
143 |
See above |
144 |
|
145 |
> Which opens up an interesting question of how to get the council to do |
146 |
> a re-vote on something, something that should be a _general_ process |
147 |
> if implemented, not "we have to implement this, but we think it has |
148 |
> issues so it should be re-examined". |
149 |
|
150 |
We need to have safe guards in place so that infra doesn't get catch |
151 |
like this again. I have stated many times that I know that the |
152 |
information was out there for us to see, but we are human and have real |
153 |
lives. We simply cannot catch everything that goes by. I ask for any |
154 |
request like this in the future has a direct conversation with infra so |
155 |
we see the proposal for sure. |
156 |
|
157 |
-- |
158 |
Lance Albertson <ramereth@g.o> |
159 |
Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager |
160 |
|
161 |
--- |
162 |
GPG Public Key: <http://www.ramereth.net/lance.asc> |
163 |
Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1 4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742 |
164 |
|
165 |
ramereth/irc.freenode.net |