On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 03:20:57PM -0600, Lance Albertson wrote:
> Danny van Dyk wrote:
> 
> > Please have a look at the council's meeting log. They said:
> > a) the changes had been minor and exactly what the changes they wanted
> > in in the first meeting.
> 
> Minor? What you're asking for will cause a lot of administrative
> nightmare for infra to manage those subdomain addresses among other
> things.

Frankly I think you're exagerating here.

You're seriously telling me it's going to cause you massive 
adminstration nightmares adding an attribute to ldap to specify the 
user comes in from a subdomain?  Where's the nightmare in admining it?  
It _should_ just be a setup cost.

If that's not the case, I question your setup.

> I would have preferred that the people involved with this could
> have directly asked infra if this would work for us. That's a simple
> request that I did not see from these folks.

It's a crazy notion, but y'all could've commented in the *TWO* months 
that this glep has been percolating, "yo, what do you want from an 
infra standpoint?".

Or implemented anoncvs in the meantime, thus nuking the main request 
that's being made of infra.


> > b) they stated that this is the first and the last time that a GLEP will
> > be voted on if that hasn't been discussed sufficiently long enough on -dev
> 
> Good, so lets please fix this current GLEP before we implement it. I
> don't like the answer of "they voted on it, so do it". To me, they voted
> upon it without following their new mandate on discussion of GLEPs
> before the meeting. The whole point of GLEPs is discussion to make sure
> we don't make mistakes, especially if revisions were made. Just because
> it follows the mandates of what the council wanted doesn't mean it
> shouldn't be discussed again on -dev. I trust the council's decisions
> and commonsense, but there still needs to be input from the masses to
> ensure details are worked out BEFORE they are voted upon.
> 
> Simply saying "we'll have a subdomain for new email addresses" without
> asking infra about it first negates the vote in my eyes because we
> weren't properly involved in the discussion process which was skipped
> for the revision. We're the ones that will be put on the task to
> implement it, yet never got any direct input from the people who wrote
> this GLEP.

It is your guys responsibility to keep up to date on what's underway.
Portage devs do it, arches do it, infra is no different.

That's why you're on this ml- that is why gleps get sent to this ml- so 
that all of the various groups can weigh in.


> > c) that new limitations for a vote are: send (revised) glep to
> > gentoo-dev (at least) 14 days before the next council meeting, ask (at
> > least) 7 days before the meeting for vote. (For this you can also read
> > seemants mail announcing the availability of the logs)
> 
> Great, so lets negate the vote and do the right thing for this current
> GLEP. I don't see the point of letting this one pass by especially since
> the GLEP folks even said themselves they could wait. All I'm after is
> doing this the right way instead of shoving it under a table and just
> forcing the issue. I would prefer this be corrected as stated above with
> proper discussion instead of saying that its already be decided on so do it.

So... infra can bitch, and have the council vote reversed?

What about portage group, do we have the same power?  QA?  Devrel? 

Y'all haven't offered any input into this glep in the 2 months it's 
been around.  Further, *you* did see the glep, and didn't get off 
your ass and state "hey guys, this has to be delayed- infra needs to 
review it".

You guys want the glep changed, either ask hparker and crew nicely, or 
submit your own glep.  You've had time to be involved, and you've 
admitted you saw but did not even comment "we need to review this, 
it must be delayed".


> Can some of the council members please comment on this? I'm curious
> their thoughts on this. Maybe I'm just barking up the wrong tree, I just
> see this as a terrible miscommunication between the GLEP authors, the
> council, and infra.

I see this mainly as infra/trustees not watching the ML.

Lance, I know you try to keep up to date and involved.
Corey thus far has made lovely accusations towards the council without even 
_reading_ the damn meeting log.  We already know klieber didn't even 
know about the meeting log/summary that was sent to this ml (and 
kicked off this thread).

Frankly it seems like y'all didn't pay attention, and got caught with 
your pants down.

Sucks, but too damn bad.

And no... bitching about the window for the revision isn't really 
valid, since the requested revisions to the glep from the council have 
been known for a month already (again, more then reasonable time to 
know what is afoot).


> The council and GLEP authors were in line, but
> weren't in line with infra. I would just like the vote to be
> reconsidered or postponed until we properly come up with a logistical
> solution that will work for infra.

As I already pointed out, the cvs issue klieber is beating over 
everyone's head is missing the fact it's a suggested route- go 
the standard ldap user route, and the issues disappear.  

Email subdomain?  Go through the channels everyone else has to.

Reversion is not an option from where I'm sitting, regardless of the 
power infra wields over gentoo or how much y'all may dislike the glep. 
Change it via the methods available, rather then the kicking/screaming.

I'm going to keep my mouth shut on the backdoor comment, aside from 
stating that's behaviour I hope to _never_ see out of a trustee again.
~harring