Thierry Carrez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Grant Goodyear wrote: > > Corey Shields wrote: [Fri Nov 18 2005, 10:42:30PM CST] > > > >>Still screwed up. Lesson learned, make friends with a majority of the > >>council, write and propose a glep the day before a meeting and then push it > >>through. wow. sounds a lot like American politics. > > > > That's quite an indictment. You've skipped right past the notion that > > perhaps a mistake was made to accuse the Council of cronyism.
Everybody reading the council-transcripts would eventually agree that the GLEP was properly discussed. The rejection of the GLEP first time was part of the conspiracy too, i spose? Come on. I do agree that timing and communication was bad. However i happened to ping hparker just a few days before the vote came up and he pointed me to the svn changelog stating that the revised GLEP was waiting there happily. So in fact it was *not* a failure of a revised GLEP but a post to -dev. > [...] > So we took the median way, accept that GLEP with those changes nobody > complained about, and create policy so that such things won't happen > in the future. Apparently we were wrong on two accounts : Taking the median way angers both extremes. But i regard the councils decision as the least of 3 evils. > - There were people that don't have an opinion on the subject but were > watching the council for its first bad step to be able to accuse it of > abuse of power or worse Seeing this actually happen has driven me nuts. Hey, where's the spirit? When i came in, i learned about finding the best technical solution to a given problem. However with this hick-hack my respect for a few developers has experienced a sharp decline. > I won't stand (mostly) alone defending the Council handling of the > problem, we were just trying to find the most acceptable solution, which > is what we were elected for. Let the vocal minority reverse that > decision, I no longer care. :( Wake up! We are having a 90+ thread about a email subdomain issue turning into council bashing. What the heck?! This is a plea for sanity. Please stick to the facts and lets find the best solution for this IMO awfully little problem. So more to the facts. As a AT, the main point in having a @<something>g.o adress is, that you're easily recognized. Email from and to devs and fellow AT/HTs is spotted faster and priorized accordingly. (The same applys to IRC, IMHO) Infra has made it clear that anything other then <something>==NULL will be a pain in the ass. I agree with that point. Given that two arguments, i'll go with the @g.o adress. But please, if there's a majority of devs disagreeing: every AT, who's spoken up here said that they don't care about the adress. So do i. Email is just a tiny bit of the GLEP and IMHO the least important. However the main idea was the tree access and i'm really looking forward to see that implemented. Regards, Matti
pgpW7TZ45hCjy.pgp
Description: PGP signature
