From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8868B138010 for ; Thu, 13 Sep 2012 07:34:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4357721C075; Thu, 13 Sep 2012 07:34:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C286421C009 for ; Thu, 13 Sep 2012 07:32:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.33] (179.Red-2-137-37.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net [2.137.37.179]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: pacho) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A573E33C246 for ; Thu, 13 Sep 2012 07:32:38 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] About changing security policy to unCC maintainers when their are not needed From: Pacho Ramos To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <20120913034350.24e9c3dc@marga.jer-c2.orkz.net> References: <1347472741.2365.5.camel@belkin4> <20120912202932.1fc1adbb@marga.jer-c2.orkz.net> <1347476000.2365.14.camel@belkin4> <20120913034350.24e9c3dc@marga.jer-c2.orkz.net> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-ZpXz6y8TbATw7kZPqvoP" Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 09:32:34 +0200 Message-ID: <1347521554.4821.4.camel@belkin4> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.3 X-Archives-Salt: 4019a6b2-a846-4330-945d-37b2abcdf46f X-Archives-Hash: d942322c3bce5f19fac867d8fe59f5c2 --=-ZpXz6y8TbATw7kZPqvoP Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable El jue, 13-09-2012 a las 03:43 +0200, Jeroen Roovers escribi=C3=B3: > On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 20:53:20 +0200 > Pacho Ramos wrote: >=20 > > > You can un-CC yourself. I don't see why security@ should be doing > > > the legwork. > > > > It shouldn't be so hard to do, they can do it just when they CC > > arches, instead of relaying some random team member to do it himself > > once a useless message is received >=20 > It does become a chore when you have to check a list to match various > CC'd people's preferences and decide whether to un-CC them based on > that, the way they were CC'd (did they do it themselves, were they CC'd > by security, and so on) and perhaps some other factors someone will no > doubt soon propose in this thread. >=20 > Basically you are saying, "why doesn't anyone else do my volunteer work > for me". >=20 >=20 > jer >=20 >=20 I am not saying that, you can see who CCed them in history and most of times was security team who CCed them... anyway, per my just replied mail to Sean, I think we could reach a good compromise. What I don't understand is why you think I am trying to say that thing when I ever wasn't sure if maintainers were allowed to unCC themselves when they think --=-ZpXz6y8TbATw7kZPqvoP Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAlBRjBIACgkQCaWpQKGI+9QmugCfeV1zxB0UiIKKA9XTyyXO2DkA iQkAn1aJUfW8NzDQ2tRM+BjnR817io58 =g3qV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-ZpXz6y8TbATw7kZPqvoP--