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 1EdHgr-0007VU-0y
for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 19 Nov 2005 01:38:53 +0000
Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id jAJ1cAm3023249;
Sat, 19 Nov 2005 01:38:10 GMT
Received: from nproxy.gmail.com (nproxy.gmail.com [64.233.182.203])
by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id jAJ1aPHr020337
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Sat, 19 Nov 2005 01:36:25 GMT
Received: by nproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id h2so16648nfe
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Fri, 18 Nov 2005 17:36:25 -0800 (PST)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
s=beta; d=gmail.com;
h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references;
b=N9WkLtvVOpw+MyPBJmUa4gZuzjZPjMS1LO9PjyYDfxS7vdTXB5ZNqkZXjfqJY6WByF5h2pVQiN5TFcMtX6hlnEprPbUPjO+H1AeJCUp9OskD01NHZ4+WU34mOgzCN/hKK1PmKCx7VCbmgHs3OIE5VnHizVQXaCJo56rUeWQnJHw=
Received: by 10.48.238.3 with SMTP id l3mr54752nfh;
Fri, 18 Nov 2005 17:36:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.48.143.15 with HTTP; Fri, 18 Nov 2005 17:36:25 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <36babadf0511181736q559ff7cdhcc68bcddf270885f@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 01:36:25 +0000
From: George Prowse <cokehabit@gmail.com>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain
In-Reply-To: <20051119005421.GF12958@dst.grantgoodyear.org>
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_Part_7539_27085543.1132364185178"
References: <1132333748.8524.9.camel@localhost>
<20051118173243.GA16034@dmz.brixandersen.dk>
<437E4F3E.5070705@gentoo.org> <20051118221428.15ba3adb@snowdrop.home>
<437E5965.10502@gentoo.org> <20051118232924.GK12982@mail.lieber.org>
<437E67E7.4040007@gentoo.org>
<20051119005421.GF12958@dst.grantgoodyear.org>
X-Archives-Salt: 3a41030f-dcde-42e9-bbe0-f4d45eb3c8e6
X-Archives-Hash: b6a7520b5f1751c3c4d9ab5160e3b3b2
------=_Part_7539_27085543.1132364185178
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
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 thi=
s
> > 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
>
>
>
------=_Part_7539_27085543.1132364185178
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
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.<br>
<br>
George<br>
<br><div><span class=3D"gmail_quote">On 11/19/05, <b class=3D"gmail_sendern=
ame">Grant Goodyear</b> <<a href=3D"mailto:g2boojum@gentoo.org">g2boojum=
@gentoo.org</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D=
"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padd=
ing-left: 1ex;">
Lance Albertson wrote: [Fri Nov 18 2005, 05:46:47PM CST]<br>> Anyways, I=
don't see any problem with us giving them straight up<br>> <a href=3D"m=
ailto:foo@gentoo.org">foo@gentoo.org</a> aliases. They won't have shell acc=
ess, nor cvs so we
<br>> don't have to worry about that. This makes it very simple for us i=
nfra<br>> folks to manage. I can only imagine the hell we'll create when=
someone<br>> moves from staff.g.o to tester.g.o to g.o. I will not supp=
ort any GLEP
<br>> that proposes any nonsense like that since its totally not needed.=
Yes,<br>> I could have spoken up about this sooner, but I can't keep tr=
ack of<br>> every thread on -dev.<br><br>I believe that the issue was th=
at @
g.o addresses generally denote a dev,<br>and that giving such addresses to =
people who are not devs could cause<br>confusion. For example, s=
uppose we have a user who specializes in a<br>particular imap server. =
If there were an urgent security issue, such a
<br>user might get a request to stable the package despite the fact that th=
e<br>person isn't a dev, which wouldn't serve anybody.<br><br>A simpler met=
hod would be to ditch the idea of handing out e-mail<br>addresses to users,=
no matter how much work they do for us, but that
<br>idea wasn't much more popular than any of the others. *Shrug=
*<br><br>> I'm very disappointed that the council did not wait on the vo=
te for this<br>> considering the sudden submission of the revision of th=
e GLEP. I'm
<br>> curious the reasoning for going ahead with this?<br><br>Have you r=
ead the log? It's fairly clear why they did it; they were<br>bei=
ng nice, because although I always intended the GLEP process to be<br>itera=
tive, with plenty of time for comments, I never put it in writing..
<br>I personally think that it would have been better to hold off until nex=
t<br>month, but it was a judgement call, and I don't think it was wholly<br=
>unreasonable. The Council did go out of their way to emphasize =
that<br>
there should not be a repeat of this event.<br><br>-g2boojum-<br>--<br>Gran=
t Goodyear<br>Gentoo Developer<br><a href=3D"mailto:g2boojum@gentoo.org">g2=
boojum@gentoo.org</a><br><a href=3D"http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum">http:/=
/www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum
</a><br>GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152=
E0F6 5B76<br><br><br></blockquote></div><br>
------=_Part_7539_27085543.1132364185178--
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list