From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.54) id 1Elfxp-00047r-Vl for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 12 Dec 2005 05:11:06 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id jBC5ALIb005193; Mon, 12 Dec 2005 05:10:21 GMT Received: from mail.epproach.net (mail.epproach.net [64.192.56.25]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id jBC58Squ016102 for ; Mon, 12 Dec 2005 05:08:29 GMT Received: (qmail 23381 invoked by uid 210); 12 Dec 2005 00:08:27 -0500 Received: from 64.192.53.34 by mail (envelope-from , uid 201) with qmail-scanner-1.25st (clamdscan: 0.87.1/1207. f-prot: 4.5.4/3.16.6. spamassassin: 3.0.4. perlscan: 1.25st. Clear:RC:1(64.192.53.34):. Processed in 0.025673 secs); 12 Dec 2005 05:08:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO montgomery-34.epproach.net) (64.192.53.34) by 0 with SMTP; 12 Dec 2005 00:08:27 -0500 Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] December Council Meeting From: Ned Ludd To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <200512112243.01717.vapier@gentoo.org> References: <20051207234959.GB14162@toucan.gentoo.org> <20051210202746.GH9505@toucan.gentoo.org> <439B6129.4000203@gentoo.org> <200512112243.01717.vapier@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Gentoo Linux Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 00:08:27 -0500 Message-Id: <1134364107.28811.66.camel@localhost> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.4.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 8ca32a57-10d4-4c23-982b-0d2288606812 X-Archives-Hash: 3257fb460a0a6851d400640728062906 On Sun, 2005-12-11 at 22:43 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Saturday 10 December 2005 18:13, Lance Albertson wrote: > > 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. > > exact spec in the GLEP was more of an idea ... anon cvs is available -> OK > > > 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. > > i would still vote for the subdomain e-mail addresses from an infra POV vs a council POV I would say here is what we can do right away to solve this. Arch testers will get added to an alias that fordwards to the users normal email address. The aliases will be maintained by the arch testing leads. The arch testers will have access via the anoncvs repo when that is setup. If the arch testing lead fails to keep his/her aliases up2date (excessive bounces, stale AT's etc..) than they lose g+w rights to maintain the alias. > > 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. > > harping on this old point solves nothing. we've already established quite > clearly that this will not happen again in the future. > -mike -- Ned Ludd Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list