On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 03:06:41PM -0800, Corey Shields wrote: > On Saturday 19 November 2005 02:19 pm, Brian Harring wrote: > > > Minor? What you're asking for will cause a lot of administrative > > > nightmare for infra to manage those subdomain addresses among other > > > things. > > > > Frankly I think you're exagerating here. > > What about the end-user headache of having to change subscriptions/bugzilla > accounts/aliases/etc. from [EMAIL PROTECTED] to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] should they turn dev?
Same rules that already are forced upon devs when they make the change. It's not really an AT specific issue. Bugzie changes are handled by the devrel monkey who is converting the user over, ml, the user has to do the re-subscribe on their own. If you're after changing that process, hell, that would be nice, but it's a global issue, not AT specific. It's not a blocker for AT's, since it's a global issue. > > It's a crazy notion, but y'all could've commented in the *TWO* months > > that this glep has been percolating, "yo, what do you want from an > > infra standpoint?". > > Yeah, my bad.. Had I known that infrastructure implementation decisions > could > be decided by a GLEP with no infra input requested, I would have paid > attention. > > Besides, when I first read the glep "*TWO* months ago" there was nothing > about > email subdomains.. It was fine.. Therefore, I did not comment. See email in response to lance. Two months is applicable for the cvs requirements... > > I see this mainly as infra/trustees not watching the ML. > > Foundation has nothing to do with this issue whatsoever. Strangely, my mentioning of it is related to my (perhaps crazy?) view that trustees should be watching what's going on with gentoo- the main comment in the email is that at least the changes were known for a month via the managers meeting is where the issue comes in. You *should* be following the council's actions in my opinon. Perhaps my view is flawed/stupid, but y'all are the stewards of gentoo. I expect you guys to be rarely surprised by proposed changes. > > Sucks, but too damn bad. > > So will be finding help from infra to implement this with that attitude. > You're not helping the situation, Brian.. Kind of took that one out of context- the comment is in regards to waiting till after something occurs to start complaining about it. Subdomain complaints, fine, I'm not even going to argue that one at this point, the actual cvs enabling, you should've known it was coming- being surprised by it sucks, but so does trying to revert it because it surprised you. > I corrected my wrong in this thread, > but I still feel that the lack of delay between the changes and the vote was > not enough for devs to comment (specifically Lance). I don't care if I am a > trustee or not, that's wrong. After your last email, I don't think you are > in any position to comment on behaviour. ;) Still stand by the email, surprisingly. Thing is, you haven't corrected 'your wrong', and if you had just *stated* the concern from above, rather then "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." I wouldn't be pointing to it as abhorrent behaviour that is cabal fodder. Baseless accusations don't usually result in people liking what you're saying, even if you retracted the "council members voting on stuff they didn't know about" claim. If you can't see that, well I'll shut up on the point (others have already pointed out it was a bs statement). ~harring
pgpRqZqykCO7H.pgp
Description: PGP signature
