Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 08:05:40PM +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > >>On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 19:40:59 +0000 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>wrote: >>| there's no point in bringing it back to the council in the current >>| form as we're just likely to approve it again >> >>So the council is aware of all the shortcomings and impossibilities >>with the GLEP in its current form, and would still approve it? > > > we were happy with the state of things with the GLEP in its current > state. if others are not, then fix the GLEP and send it back. theres > no point in trying to get the council to "fix" the GLEP when we were > for the current changes (such as the e-mail domains idea).
You're happy even after all the discussion and points we made AFTER it was voted upon? I still find it outrageous that it went through with the revised GLEP being posted a day BEFORE the vote. I think we'll be able to work out the anonymous CVS access soon, however it will not be implemented as stated in the GLEP. It will be synced every 30 minutes and no user accounts will be issued. The ATs that responded on the list felt that this would be an 'OK' route to go. I do not want to add 50-100 people onto our primary CVS server for the only reason of having anonymous cvs access. On the other point, infra has serious issues trying to manage a subdomain for email addresses. This part of the GLEP we cannot implement and we ask the GLEP authors to come up with a better solution. Either we give them an alias that recruiters can manage, or we don't do anything. The logistical headache of managing moving people around is too much of a hassle for us to deal with. Of course, all of these points would have made it into the GLEP *if* it had been posted with plenty of time for people to comment on it instead of one day. I do not feel that improper planning on their part should have let the GLEP get approved in the first place. No matter if all the council members thought it was ok, not giving any of the other developers proper time to respond to the GLEP is not a good decision. That's just asking me to scream 'cabal!' ;-) (even though I know that wasn't the case at all). -- 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
