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 4.43) id 1EFLFW-0000pU-Om for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 14 Sep 2005 00:35:43 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j8E0TqZo018219; Wed, 14 Sep 2005 00:29:52 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j8E0RB6S013665 for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Wed, 14 Sep 2005 00:27:12 GMT Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=home.wh0rd.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EFLBm-0007D2-JW for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Wed, 14 Sep 2005 00:31:50 +0000 Received: (qmail 21385 invoked from network); 13 Sep 2005 20:28:46 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO vapier) (192.168.0.2) by 192.168.0.1 with SMTP; 13 Sep 2005 20:28:46 -0400 From: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> Organization: wh0rd.org To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council meeting, Thursday 15th, 1900 UTC Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 20:31:53 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.2 References: <4325D12A.5050601@gentoo.org> <200509132011.22368.vapier@gentoo.org> <43276D4F.9040508@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <43276D4F.9040508@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org> List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@gentoo.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@gentoo.org> List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@gentoo.org> List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org> X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200509132031.53553.vapier@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: 686fbdeb-58ec-4240-872e-8c681ec5d0be X-Archives-Hash: 89e3f2c014f21c3cc6219619ae71baf0 On Tuesday 13 September 2005 08:22 pm, Lance Albertson wrote: > Mike Frysinger wrote: > >>It certainly says they're responsible for adding and removing > >>developers, but I don't see anything about them being solely responsible > >>for revoking access. > > > > no, nowhere does it say 'devrel is the only team which may revoke > > access', but it is the only team which says they can and i'd prefer it > > stay that way > > I would like there to be a clause that infra has the ability to at least > temporarily revoke access to have the ability to protect our servers if > something came up quickly. I've always made sure any permanent removals > go through devrel first. that would make a lot of sense -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list