On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 11:47:18AM -0700 or thereabouts, Duncan wrote:
> As proposed, that recognizably distinct address was a subdomain.  However,
> infra has objected to that as unworkable.  However, the wording of the
> GLEP makes it clear that the subdomain was a proposal and that the details
> were to be worked out.  What this "possible solution" does is provide a
> way for that to happen -- something infra shouldn't have issues with,
> while at the same time, implementing that aspect of the GLEP as adopted by
> the council.

The "possible solution" offers no technical or administrative advantages
over creating a sub-domain in the first place.  The two solutions are
essentially equal.

> What I'm saying is that this is a solution consistent with the "situation
> on the ground" as we no have it.  Sure, we can argue that the situation
> should be different, but this, from my viewpoint, is a pragmatic solution
> to a very tough and controversial problem, that the council has
> none-the-less expressed its view on, with said view approaching IMO about
> the best possible compromise between the opposing viewpoints.

This solution has the same yellow star stigma that the original proposal
does.

> I'm just trying to provide a way (thanks to the original suggestor) to
> "get some progress on the ground", instead of seeing it constantly
> debated, with no real conclusion or practical application of the debate in
> sight.

The only outstanding administrative issue is how these aliases are managed.
The same management issues exist regardless of whether we're talking about
foo.tester@gentoo.org or foo@tester.gentoo.org.

--kurt