Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Matti Bickel <kabel@cat0.de>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2999 bytes --]

Thierry Carrez <koon@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Grant Goodyear wrote:
> > Corey Shields wrote: [Fri Nov 18 2005, 10:42:30PM CST]
> > 
> >>Still screwed up.  Lesson learned, make friends with a majority of the 
> >>council, write and propose a glep the day before a meeting and then push it 
> >>through.  wow.  sounds a lot like American politics.
> > 
> > That's quite an indictment.  You've skipped right past the notion that
> > perhaps a mistake was made to accuse the Council of cronyism. 

Everybody reading the council-transcripts would eventually agree that
the GLEP was properly discussed. The rejection of the GLEP first time
was part of the conspiracy too, i spose?

Come on. I do agree that timing and communication was bad. However i
happened to ping hparker just a few days before the vote came up and
he pointed me to the svn changelog stating that the revised GLEP was
waiting there happily.

So in fact it was *not* a failure of a revised GLEP but a post to -dev.

> [...]
> So we took the median way, accept that GLEP with those changes nobody
> complained about, and create policy so that such things won't happen
> in the future. Apparently we were wrong on two accounts :

Taking the median way angers both extremes. But i regard the councils
decision as the least of 3 evils.

> - There were people that don't have an opinion on the subject but were
> watching the council for its first bad step to be able to accuse it of
> abuse of power or worse

Seeing this actually happen has driven me nuts. Hey, where's the spirit?
When i came in, i learned about finding the best technical solution to a
given problem.  However with this hick-hack my respect for a few
developers has experienced a sharp decline.

> I won't stand (mostly) alone defending the Council handling of the
> problem, we were just trying to find the most acceptable solution, which
> is what we were elected for. Let the vocal minority reverse that
> decision, I no longer care.

:(
Wake up! We are having a 90+ thread about a email subdomain issue
turning into council bashing. What the heck?! This is a plea for sanity.
Please stick to the facts and lets find the best solution for this IMO
awfully little problem.

So more to the facts.
As a AT, the main point in having a @<something>g.o adress is, that
you're easily recognized. Email from and to devs and fellow AT/HTs is
spotted faster and priorized accordingly. (The same applys to IRC, IMHO)

Infra has made it clear that anything other then <something>==NULL will
be a pain in the ass. I agree with that point. Given that two arguments,
i'll go with the @g.o adress.

But please, if there's a majority of devs disagreeing: every AT, who's
spoken up here said that they don't care about the adress. So do i.
Email is just a tiny bit of the GLEP and IMHO the least important.
However the main idea was the tree access and i'm really looking forward
to see that implemented.

Regards,
Matti

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]