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 4.50) id 1EdMu0-000597-UA for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 19 Nov 2005 07:12:49 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id jAJ7C6cg009981; Sat, 19 Nov 2005 07:12:06 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id jAJ7AKnt014362 for ; Sat, 19 Nov 2005 07:10:20 GMT Received: from vapier by smtp.gentoo.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1EdMrc-0000xu-2S for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Sat, 19 Nov 2005 07:10:20 +0000 Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 07:10:20 +0000 From: Mike Frysinger To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain Message-ID: <20051119071020.GD31452@toucan.gentoo.org> References: <1132333748.8524.9.camel@localhost> <20051118173243.GA16034@dmz.brixandersen.dk> <437E4F3E.5070705@gentoo.org> <20051118221428.15ba3adb@snowdrop.home> <437E5965.10502@gentoo.org> <20051118235829.GC12958@dst.grantgoodyear.org> <3610591862.20051119010748@gentoo.org> <437E7B49.7080204@gentoo.org> <20051119053317.GB31452@toucan.gentoo.org> <20051119055444.GN12982@mail.lieber.org> 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20051119055444.GN12982@mail.lieber.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-Archives-Salt: 6ae61372-bbbf-473d-89e7-461c25d34585 X-Archives-Hash: b82d77e3a1ea4b5be5d08ed0621e88bd On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 05:54:44AM +0000, Kurt Lieber wrote: > On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 05:33:17AM +0000 or thereabouts, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 09:09:29PM -0400, Luis F. Araujo wrote: > > > What is the problem of giving them @g.o addresses? > > > > read the first meeting where GLEP 41 was covered ... > > If I'm understanding it correctly, the concern was that by giving folks > "real" gentoo.org addresses if they were "only" doing arch testing, there > would be no incentive for them to contribute any more than that. not really ... more like handing out @gentoo.org addresses to people was becoming a gimmick. i'm quite proud to have a @gentoo.org e-mail and dont really like the idea of trivializing it. > * There are a lot of Gentoo devs right now with full gentoo.org addresses > who don't do squat for this project, so exactly what bar are we holding > these arch testers to? this is why we have been retiring people. if a Gentoo dev is useless, then lets go with iggy's GLEP and vote the worthless cruft off the island. being a 'full dev' implies you can be held accountable and are required to fulfill a significant amount of responsibility. AT's dont generally want that level of commitment. i'm not saying that what they contribute is meaningless (they have a useful role in the Gentoo project), just that i'd like to think that i, and other 'full devs', take it to the next level. uNF -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list