Lance Albertson wrote: [Fri Nov 18 2005, 05:46:47PM CST]
> Anyways, I don't see any problem with us giving them straight up
> foo@gentoo.org aliases. They won't have shell access, nor cvs so we
> don't have to worry about that. This makes it very simple for us infra
> folks to manage. I can only imagine the hell we'll create when someone
> moves from staff.g.o to tester.g.o to g.o. I will not support any GLEP
> that proposes any nonsense like that since its totally not needed. Yes,
> I could have spoken up about this sooner, but I can't keep track of
> every thread on -dev.

I believe that the issue was that @g.o addresses generally denote a dev,
and that giving such addresses to people who are not devs could cause
confusion.  For example, suppose we have a user who specializes in a
particular imap server.  If there were an urgent security issue, such a
user might get a request to stable the package despite the fact that the
person isn't a dev, which wouldn't serve anybody.

A simpler method would be to ditch the idea of handing out e-mail
addresses to users, no matter how much work they do for us, but that
idea wasn't much more popular than any of the others.  *Shrug*

> I'm very disappointed that the council did not wait on the vote for this
> considering the sudden submission of the revision of the GLEP. I'm
> curious the reasoning for going ahead with this?

Have you read the log?  It's fairly clear why they did it; they were
being nice, because although I always intended the GLEP process to be
iterative, with plenty of time for comments, I never put it in writing..
I personally think that it would have been better to hold off until next
month, but it was a judgement call, and I don't think it was wholly
unreasonable.  The Council did go out of their way to emphasize that
there should not be a repeat of this event.

-g2boojum-
-- 
Grant Goodyear	
Gentoo Developer
g2boojum@gentoo.org
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0  9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76