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