The only reason any of this is coming up is because some wanted to keep the
.g.org addresses to the developer staff. If the CVS access is read only and
they are working for gentoo what difference would it make? This would sort
out the AT and forums question in one swoop.

George

On 11/19/05, Grant Goodyear <g2boojum@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
>