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 4.43) id 1EFL5C-0005WY-23 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 14 Sep 2005 00:25:02 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j8E0JggA010346; Wed, 14 Sep 2005 00:19:42 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j8E0I1HU001873 for ; Wed, 14 Sep 2005 00:18:01 GMT Received: from ip68-102-201-166.ks.ok.cox.net ([68.102.201.166] helo=[10.3.1.3]) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.43) id 1EFL2t-0006d2-TU for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Wed, 14 Sep 2005 00:22:39 +0000 Message-ID: <43276D4F.9040508@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 19:22:39 -0500 From: Lance Albertson User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (X11/20050731) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council meeting, Thursday 15th, 1900 UTC References: <4325D12A.5050601@gentoo.org> <200509131947.28908.vapier@gentoo.org> <432767C8.103@gentoo.org> <200509132011.22368.vapier@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <200509132011.22368.vapier@gentoo.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.92.0.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig4BD9A0B7CFB72E646E73D39D" X-Archives-Salt: 6bc37892-c3f7-4695-a286-18fae33c941e X-Archives-Hash: 77364b0cc85f6562234f45a249380f89 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig4BD9A0B7CFB72E646E73D39D Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mike Frysinger wrote: >>It certainly says they're responsible for adding and removing >>developers, but I don't see anything about them being solely responsible >>for revoking access. > > > no, nowhere does it say 'devrel is the only team which may revoke access', but > it is the only team which says they can and i'd prefer it stay that way > -mike I would like there to be a clause that infra has the ability to at least temporarily revoke access to have the ability to protect our servers if something came up quickly. I've always made sure any permanent removals go through devrel first. -- Lance Albertson Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager --- GPG Public Key: Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1 4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742 ramereth/irc.freenode.net --------------enig4BD9A0B7CFB72E646E73D39D Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDJ21PQW+hXSf0t0IRAtAoAJ9NjqSURK0DAmCltbsOabbAVv5vhwCfajOF eMKONpMVZjV37ziANYMSBaQ= =eGZS -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig4BD9A0B7CFB72E646E73D39D-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list