Re: [gentoo-dev] implementation details for GLEP 41

[Kurt Lieber]

On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 01:51:15PM -0600 or thereabouts, Brian Harring wrote:
> I'll again point out that the glep doesn't actually mandate it, states
> it's the lowest common denominator that's acceptable.

And I'll point out that there's more than one issue that we're concerned
with here.
  
> Stop pointing at one interpretation of it that sucks, when the glep
> _does_ leave it open to you how to implement it.  It's a waste of
> people's time and bandwidth, and is a bit disenguous.

I'm trying to find a solution to the issues as I see them.  Telling me I'm
wasting people's time and bandwidth doesn't seem conducive to working
together towards a resolution to this all.  If you're going to say, "it was
passed, you guys just have to find a way to implement it.  now please stop
bothering us" then I'm going to come up with an implementation plan that
looks something like the following:

* all SSH keys and email addresses for arch testers will auto-expire after
  60 days.  If an arch tester needs to have continued access, a gentoo dev
  will have to re-submit the key and recreate the alias for that arch
  tester every 60 days.

That meets the requirements of the GLEP down to the letter and also
satisfies infra concerns around key management.  However, it's a crappy
solution.

So, I'd much rather work together towards finding a better one.  

--kurt