Marius Mauch posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below, on Wed, 23 Nov 2005 15:40:49 +0100:
> On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 03:39:08 -0700 > Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Here's the proposal again. If there's an issue with it, shoot it down, >> but from here, it certainly seems to fit the bill. Again, I'd /love/ to >> say I was the one that came up with it, but I wasn't. >> =8^) >> >> * give [AH]Ts a <name>[EMAIL PROTECTED] address. >> >> - It's not a subdomain, so the existing infrastructure should have no >> problems with it. >> >> - [EMAIL PROTECTED] remains distinctive enough it should >> alleviate any doubts or confusion over status. >> > Has the same problem as a subdomain as it creates two "classes" of devs. > So it would solve the potential technical problems, but we still have the > semantic issues. Viewpoint seen, and thanks for posting it. However, the proposed solution still appears from here to fit the bill, because... - The folks to whom it will apply are /not/ full devs, as they haven't gone thru the dev process, so it's not creating two classes of devs, but rather creating a distinction between devs and this not-dev class. - Lack of said distinction appears to have been one of the specific items on the list the first time thru thru. The council said it had to be added, so it was. The council then approved the change with the addition made at their instruction. Sure, we could go back and argue the wisdom of the original point made by the council, but to this point, I haven't seen that seriously debated, nor do I believe it should be, because either we accept that the council has the authority to make those sorts of decisions or we don't, and if we don't, what do we have a council for? It would seem to me that there are two opposing viewpoints, one taking the position that ATs should be practically treated as devs, no distinction, the other taking the position that they are just users and the whole AT position shouldn't exist. The council position seems to be a generally reasonable compromise, that they are a class of user that should be recognized as making a contribution and having responsibilities beyond that of an ordinary user, but that they should remain distinct from full devs, because they are NOT full devs. Part of that position is that they get a gentoo mail address, but one recongizably distinct from that of a gentoo dev. As proposed, that recognizably distinct address was a subdomain. However, infra has objected to that as unworkable. However, the wording of the GLEP makes it clear that the subdomain was a proposal and that the details were to be worked out. What this "possible solution" does is provide a way for that to happen -- something infra shouldn't have issues with, while at the same time, implementing that aspect of the GLEP as adopted by the council. What I'm saying is that this is a solution consistent with the "situation on the ground" as we no have it. Sure, we can argue that the situation should be different, but this, from my viewpoint, is a pragmatic solution to a very tough and controversial problem, that the council has none-the-less expressed its view on, with said view approaching IMO about the best possible compromise between the opposing viewpoints. I'm just trying to provide a way (thanks to the original suggestor) to "get some progress on the ground", instead of seeing it constantly debated, with no real conclusion or practical application of the debate in sight. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman in http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
