[gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Homer Parker]

	Now that GLEP 41 (AT/HT) has passed, we need to designate a subdomain
for their email. This will cover AT/HT's as well as forum help, so needs
to be generic. So to start with let me throw a couple out:

@staff.g.o
@assist.g.o

	Thoughts, better ideas appreciated. 

-- 
Homer Parker
Gentoo/AMD64 Team
Gentoo/AMD64 Arch Tester Strategic Lead
Gentoo Linux Developer Relations
hparker@gentoo.org

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Henrik Brix Andersen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 216 bytes --]

On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 11:09:07AM -0600, Homer Parker wrote:
> @staff.g.o

Staff sounds pretty good to me.

./Brix
-- 
Henrik Brix Andersen <brix@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Metadistribution | Mobile computing herd

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 211 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Curtis Napier]

Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 11:09:07AM -0600, Homer Parker wrote:
> 
>>@staff.g.o
> 
> 
> Staff sounds pretty good to me.
> 
> ./Brix

This sounds good to me as well, very professional. How easy is it going 
to be to change to a normal @g.o address? As simple as a forward? For 
instance, if someone who is an AT decides to become a full dev.

Sorry if this question was already answered. I didn't see it if it was.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Homer Parker]

On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 17:01 -0500, Curtis Napier wrote:
> This sounds good to me as well, very professional. How easy is it
> going 
> to be to change to a normal @g.o address? As simple as a forward? For 
> instance, if someone who is an AT decides to become a full dev.

	That's what the GLEP says will happen ;)

-- 
Homer Parker
Gentoo/AMD64 Team
Gentoo/AMD64 Arch Tester Strategic Lead
Gentoo Linux Developer Relations
hparker@gentoo.org

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 374 bytes --]

On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 17:01:34 -0500 Curtis Napier <curtis119@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| This sounds good to me as well, very professional.

The problem with staff is that staff who aren't ATs/HTs won't be using
it...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Look! Shiny things!)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Curtis Napier]

Homer Parker wrote:
 > On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 17:01 -0500, Curtis Napier wrote:
 >
 >>This sounds good to me as well, very professional. How easy is it
 >>going
 >>to be to change to a normal @g.o address? As simple as a forward? For
 >>instance, if someone who is an AT decides to become a full dev.
 >
 >
 > 	That's what the GLEP says will happen ;)
 >

:redfaced:

Sorry, I read the glep initially when it was first posted but I forgot 
that detail.



Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 17:01:34 -0500 Curtis Napier <curtis119@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> | This sounds good to me as well, very professional.
> 
> The problem with staff is that staff who aren't ATs/HTs won't be using
> it...
> 

I agree with this. Those of us who don't have commit rights to the tree 
should have an @staff.g.o, people like me for instance. I happen to be 
part of two projects but neither gives me access to the tree so I would 
get an @staff.g.o and am fine with that. It lets people I email outside 
of the project know that I am staff and not a developer.

Maybe a new GLEP is in order? It makes sense to do it now since infra is 
going to be setting up alias' anyway. While we're at it possibly an 
@dev.g.o as well (as someone mentioned)? That way there is no confusion. 
If anyone wants to pursue this we should start a new thread to keep the 
issues seperate.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 630 bytes --]

On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 17:44:53 -0500 Curtis Napier <curtis119@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| Maybe a new GLEP is in order? It makes sense to do it now since infra
| is going to be setting up alias' anyway. While we're at it possibly
| an @dev.g.o as well (as someone mentioned)? That way there is no
| confusion. If anyone wants to pursue this we should start a new
| thread to keep the issues seperate.

If someone's going to do that, could they consider @herd.g.o as well?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Look! Shiny things!)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Scott Stoddard]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 17:44:53 -0500 Curtis Napier <curtis119@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> | Maybe a new GLEP is in order? It makes sense to do it now since infra
> | is going to be setting up alias' anyway. While we're at it possibly
> | an @dev.g.o as well (as someone mentioned)? That way there is no
> | confusion. If anyone wants to pursue this we should start a new
> | thread to keep the issues seperate.
> 
> If someone's going to do that, could they consider @herd.g.o as well?
> 

Being relatively new to the team, I speak with a bit of naivet'e about 
the whole thing, but doesn't that seem to make the most sense?

@dev.gentoo.org for devs
@herd.gentoo.org for herd ATs
@staff.gentoo.org for forum admins, PR people, etc

Scott.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 623 bytes --]

On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 18:18:12 -0500 Scott Stoddard
<scott@cs.ubishops.ca> wrote:
| Being relatively new to the team, I speak with a bit of naivet'e
| about the whole thing, but doesn't that seem to make the most sense?
| 
| @dev.gentoo.org for devs
| @herd.gentoo.org for herd ATs
| @staff.gentoo.org for forum admins, PR people, etc

Not really. Lots of people are in multiple roles... Plus, the @dev.
thing goes against what we've been doing for years.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Look! Shiny things!)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 715 bytes --]

On Saturday 19 November 2005 00:18, Scott Stoddard wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 17:44:53 -0500 Curtis Napier <curtis119@gentoo.org>
> > wrote:
> Being relatively new to the team, I speak with a bit of naivet'e about 
> the whole thing, but doesn't that seem to make the most sense?
> 
> @dev.gentoo.org for devs
> @herd.gentoo.org for herd ATs
> @staff.gentoo.org for forum admins, PR people, etc
I don't see any reason that a GLEP targeted at arch testers should get us to 
change all email addresses. 

Keep it simple, every "dev" contributes to the project and should get a @g.o 
email addy (or be retired).

-- 
Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen
Gentoo Linux Security Team

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Kurt Lieber]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1312 bytes --]

On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 05:44:53PM -0500 or thereabouts, Curtis Napier wrote:
> Maybe a new GLEP is in order? It makes sense to do it now since infra is 
> going to be setting up alias' anyway. While we're at it possibly an 
> @dev.g.o as well (as someone mentioned)? That way there is no confusion. 
> If anyone wants to pursue this we should start a new thread to keep the 
> issues seperate.

What purpose does this serve?  This would create all sorts of confusion.
Right now, you can meet someone in IRC and make a reasonable assumption
that their email address is <irc nick>@gentoo.org.  This would confuse
things horribly imo.  What about people like me that span multiple roles?

What happens when someone (again, like me) starts out in one area, moves to
another, then still a third and finally a fourth?  We're going to be
updating aliases all over the place and for what?

How does any of this make Gentoo Linux a better distro?  Does it reduce
bugs?  Improve QA?  Can I add -staff.gentoo.org to my CFLAGS and get a
0.00001% speed increase?

There is no technical reason why any of this is necessary and it doesn't
provide any tangible benefits that I can see.  If a user really wants to
know someone's role within the project, they can go look it up on the web
site.

--kurt

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re[2]: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Jakub Moc]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1623 bytes --]


19.11.2005, 0:29:24, Kurt Lieber wrote:

> What purpose does this serve?  This would create all sorts of confusion.
> Right now, you can meet someone in IRC and make a reasonable assumption that
> their email address is <irc nick>@gentoo.org.  This would confuse things
> horribly imo.  What about people like me that span multiple roles?

> What happens when someone (again, like me) starts out in one area, moves to
> another, then still a third and finally a fourth?  We're going to be
> updating aliases all over the place and for what?

> How does any of this make Gentoo Linux a better distro?  Does it reduce
> bugs?  Improve QA?  Can I add -staff.gentoo.org to my CFLAGS and get a
> 0.00001% speed increase?

> There is no technical reason why any of this is necessary and it doesn't
> provide any tangible benefits that I can see.  If a user really wants to
> know someone's role within the project, they can go look it up on the web
> site.

+1 on this, and please don't touch bugzie aliases, there's enough mess as it is
(postgresl herd - pgsql-bugs@g.o.; apache herd - apache-devs@g.o. -
apache-bugs@g.o.) If you want to do something useful, then please check that
you have existing alias in metadata.xml for the ebuilds that you are
maintaining (to name a few: qt, secure-tunneling or comm-fax is NOT an existing
alias on bugzilla).


-- 
Best regards,

 Jakub Moc
 mailto:jakub@gentoo.org
 GPG signature: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E
 Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95  B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E

 ... still no signature ;)

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 183 bytes --]

Re: Re[2]: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 801 bytes --]

On Saturday 19 November 2005 00:34, Jakub Moc wrote:

> +1 on this, and please don't touch bugzie aliases, there's enough mess as
> it is (postgresl herd - pgsql-bugs@g.o.; apache herd - apache-devs@g.o. -
> apache-bugs@g.o.) If you want to do something useful, then please check
> that you have existing alias in metadata.xml for the ebuilds that you are
> maintaining (to name a few: qt, secure-tunneling or comm-fax is NOT an
> existing alias on bugzilla).

And while you're at it, also set the alias for your herd in the herds.xml 
file. That's where the authoritive mapping is.

Paul

ps. If qt@gentoo.org doesn't exist that is broken, as it's even announced in 
the herds file.

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Luca Barbato]

Kurt Lieber wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 05:44:53PM -0500 or thereabouts, Curtis Napier wrote:

> There is no technical reason why any of this is necessary and it doesn't
> provide any tangible benefits that I can see.  If a user really wants to
> know someone's role within the project, they can go look it up on the web
> site.
+1

-- 

Luca Barbato

Gentoo/linux Developer		Gentoo/PPC Operational Leader
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Lance Albertson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2522 bytes --]

Kurt Lieber wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 05:44:53PM -0500 or thereabouts, Curtis Napier wrote:
> 
>>Maybe a new GLEP is in order? It makes sense to do it now since infra is 
>>going to be setting up alias' anyway. While we're at it possibly an 
>>@dev.g.o as well (as someone mentioned)? That way there is no confusion. 
>>If anyone wants to pursue this we should start a new thread to keep the 
>>issues seperate.
> 
> 
> What purpose does this serve?  This would create all sorts of confusion.
> Right now, you can meet someone in IRC and make a reasonable assumption
> that their email address is <irc nick>@gentoo.org.  This would confuse
> things horribly imo.  What about people like me that span multiple roles?
> 
> What happens when someone (again, like me) starts out in one area, moves to
> another, then still a third and finally a fourth?  We're going to be
> updating aliases all over the place and for what?

I'm totally in agreement here with Kurt. Why in the world do we need to
add confusion to our users? This is precisely why I suggested we waited
to vote on this since they posted the revised GLEP the DAY BEFORE the
vote. Some of us folks have real jobs during the day and don't have the
time to get caught up on all the Gentoo happenings.

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'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?

> There is no technical reason why any of this is necessary and it doesn't
> provide any tangible benefits that I can see.  If a user really wants to
> know someone's role within the project, they can go look it up on the web
> site.

Exactly.

Please provide details why we can't just give them straight up aliases.

-- 
Lance Albertson <ramereth@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager

---
GPG Public Key:  <http://www.ramereth.net/lance.asc>
Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1  4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742

ramereth/irc.freenode.net

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 186 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Grant Goodyear]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2060 bytes --]

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

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Luis F. Araujo]

Grant Goodyear 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.
>
>  
>
That confusion might happen even with packages maintainers devs.

That's why you need to check the herd before sending such a request.

You might claim that you also could check for his subdomains address , 
but here
we get to the same point of, What is the advantage of a subdomain 
distinction?,
in other hand i believe other people will have more technical confusion 
(ping infra).

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[George Prowse]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2485 bytes --]

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
>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3011 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Lance Albertson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3537 bytes --]

Grant Goodyear 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 really don't see that example happening that much. If it does happen,
we'd hope that if we gave these folks these types of rights, they would
do the right thing and forward off the request to the correct group.
We're all part of this organization whether we submit ebuilds, update
documentation, or moderate the forums. If we include these folks into
our family, I'd say we need to hold them up to those high of 'standards'.

I just want to clarify that I'm not against giving them an email
address, I'm against the administrative nightmare and system
administration nightmare of maintaining a subset of email addresses. I
would prefer to keep our infrastructure as simple as we can make it and
I simply do not see splitting up a subdomain as a solution I would
implement.

It may look good on paper, but reality is totally different.

>>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.

Sadly, no I haven't read the log (as I probably should have). Life has
been pretty busy for me and reading hours of irc logs isn't exactly on
the top of my list of things to do. I was planning on commenting on the
revised GLEP, but I simply did not have adequate time to do so under the
circumstances that happened. I want these folks to get the recognition
they deserve, but I would have preferred more time to discuss the
logistic details of their plan. If that were to have happened, I
wouldn't be so annoyed about this whole thread.

-- 
Lance Albertson <ramereth@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager

---
GPG Public Key:  <http://www.ramereth.net/lance.asc>
Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1  4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742

ramereth/irc.freenode.net

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 186 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Corey Shields]

On Friday 18 November 2005 03:46 pm, Lance Albertson wrote:
> 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?

So..  I'm hearing that the GLEP was submitted, then a day before the vote it 
was revised..  Is that true?  It should be voted on the way that it was 
submitted.  No riders.  If it needs to be revised post-submission, then such 
submission should be revoked.

Someone should write a GLEP to propose rules to the GLEP votes.

:P

-- 
Corey Shields
Gentoo Linux Infrastructure Team
Gentoo Foundation Board of Trustees
http://www.gentoo.org/~cshields
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Lance Albertson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1291 bytes --]

Corey Shields wrote:
> On Friday 18 November 2005 03:46 pm, Lance Albertson wrote:
> 
>>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?
> 
> 
> So..  I'm hearing that the GLEP was submitted, then a day before the vote it 
> was revised..  Is that true?  It should be voted on the way that it was 
> submitted.  No riders.  If it needs to be revised post-submission, then such 
> submission should be revoked.

No, thats not entirely true. It was submitted a few months ago and taken
to the council where it was rejected and asked to be revised. When the
council asked for things to put on their agenda for this latest meeting,
it was asked that this GLEP be voted upon again. At this point, the
revised version had yet to be shown on -dev for discussion. It wasn't
until a day before the vote that it was sent to -dev for discussion.

I just wanted to get the facts straight :-) (at least from how I know).

-- 
Lance Albertson <ramereth@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager

---
GPG Public Key:  <http://www.ramereth.net/lance.asc>
Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1  4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742

ramereth/irc.freenode.net

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 186 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Corey Shields]

On Friday 18 November 2005 08:31 pm, Lance Albertson wrote:
> No, thats not entirely true. It was submitted a few months ago and taken
> to the council where it was rejected and asked to be revised. When the
> council asked for things to put on their agenda for this latest meeting,
> it was asked that this GLEP be voted upon again. At this point, the
> revised version had yet to be shown on -dev for discussion. It wasn't
> until a day before the vote that it was sent to -dev for discussion.
>
> I just wanted to get the facts straight :-) (at least from how I know).

Ahh, ok   thanks for clearing that up.

Still screwed up.  Lesson learned, make friends with a majority of the 
council, write and propose a glep the day before a meeting and then push it 
through.  wow.  sounds a lot like American politics.

-- 
Corey Shields
Gentoo Linux Infrastructure Team
Gentoo Foundation Board of Trustees
http://www.gentoo.org/~cshields
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Dan Meltzer]

Read the log before commenting.  Along with the email containing the log

It explains what occurred fairly well, oddly enough.

On 11/18/05, Corey Shields <cshields@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Friday 18 November 2005 08:31 pm, Lance Albertson wrote:
> > No, thats not entirely true. It was submitted a few months ago and taken
> > to the council where it was rejected and asked to be revised. When the
> > council asked for things to put on their agenda for this latest meeting,
> > it was asked that this GLEP be voted upon again. At this point, the
> > revised version had yet to be shown on -dev for discussion. It wasn't
> > until a day before the vote that it was sent to -dev for discussion.
> >
> > I just wanted to get the facts straight :-) (at least from how I know).
>
> Ahh, ok   thanks for clearing that up.
>
> Still screwed up.  Lesson learned, make friends with a majority of the
> council, write and propose a glep the day before a meeting and then push it
> through.  wow.  sounds a lot like American politics.
>
> --
> Corey Shields
> Gentoo Linux Infrastructure Team
> Gentoo Foundation Board of Trustees
> http://www.gentoo.org/~cshields
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
>
>

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Grant Goodyear]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3218 bytes --]

Corey Shields wrote: [Fri Nov 18 2005, 10:42:30PM CST]
> Still screwed up.  Lesson learned, make friends with a majority of the 
> council, write and propose a glep the day before a meeting and then push it 
> through.  wow.  sounds a lot like American politics.

That's quite an indictment.  You've skipped right past the notion that
perhaps a mistake was made to accuse the Council of cronyism.  As
somebody who's been part of devrel, and thus the recipient of exactly
that type of response more than once, I would think that you would have
known (and done) better.

Incidentally, the GLEP was originally revised and posted on glep.g.o on
11 November before the 2000 UTC deadline to request being added to the
agenda for the 15 Nov. meeting.  When hparker updated the GLEP he made a
rookie mistake, and forgot to update the Post-History field, so when I
looked at the GLEP I assumed that it hadn't been updated.  It's clear
that the GLEP authors assumed that they just needed to incorporate the
changes that the Council suggested, and that approval would be pro
forma.  In fact, they should have submitted the GLEP to -dev for another
round of comments.  Indeed, this GLEP reveals that there are a number of
misconceptions in how the GLEP process is supposed to work.

Here's what was supposed to happen.  (Yes, it's my fault for not
ensuring that it did, and I very much apologize.)  After a GLEP is
approved by the GLEP editor for posting to glep.g.o, the GLEP is sent to
-dev for comments.  Sane disputes should then be incorporated into a
revision of the GLEP, where such disputes should be addressed and either
incorporated or rejected with an explanation of why.  There were,
indeed, a number of disagreements with this GLEP when it was first
released, and they are not at all documented in the GLEP.  This process
is iterated until some sort of steady state is reached, at which point
the GLEP authors are supposed to tell the GLEP editor that they are
ready for it to go up for approval.  This step is actually fairly
important, since the GLEP editor is responsible for determining who the
"controlling authority" is for the GLEP.  A full Council vote is only
needed on GLEPs that are cross-project (or that lack a project).  Both
times that this GLEP went up for approval I should have been much more
assertive in stating that this GLEP was not yet ready.  (It's not the
GLEP editor's place to prevent a GLEP from going up for approval,
however.  The assumption is that a not-yet-ready GLEP will simply be
voted down.)

In any event, mistakes happen.  The real question is what to do next.
This GLEP has been approved, for good or ill.  Either the GLEP authors
can offer a revision that incorporates the disputes that are coming up
now (and that came up before but were never addressed),
or somebody can write a new GLEP that would supersede this one,
or people can just live with the current version.  In any case, you have
my apology for not doing a very good job with this one.

-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

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Thierry Carrez]

Grant Goodyear wrote:
> Corey Shields wrote: [Fri Nov 18 2005, 10:42:30PM CST]
> 
>>Still screwed up.  Lesson learned, make friends with a majority of the 
>>council, write and propose a glep the day before a meeting and then push it 
>>through.  wow.  sounds a lot like American politics.
> 
> That's quite an indictment.  You've skipped right past the notion that
> perhaps a mistake was made to accuse the Council of cronyism.  As
> somebody who's been part of devrel, and thus the recipient of exactly
> that type of response more than once, I would think that you would have
> known (and done) better.

+1 here.

Cut the kabbale crap : we felt bad about delaying the GLEP vote for one
more month, and we also felt bad about pushing the decision while some
people already complained that revised version wasn't published soon
enough. The meetings logs are quite clear on this. So we took the median
way, accept that GLEP with those changes nobody complained about, and
create policy so that such things won't happen in the future. Apparently
we were wrong on two accounts :

- There were people that disagreed with the changes but stayed quiet in
their corner, waiting for a revised GLEP to appear to make their
comments, and that were caught short by its publication just before the
meeting

- There were people that don't have an opinion on the subject but were
watching the council for its first bad step to be able to accuse it of
abuse of power or worse

I won't stand (mostly) alone defending the Council handling of the
problem, we were just trying to find the most acceptable solution, which
is what we were elected for. Let the vocal minority reverse that
decision, I no longer care.

-- 
Koon
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Corey Shields]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1539 bytes --]

On Saturday 19 November 2005 08:46 am, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Grant Goodyear wrote:
> > That's quite an indictment.  You've skipped right past the notion that
> > perhaps a mistake was made to accuse the Council of cronyism.  As
> > somebody who's been part of devrel, and thus the recipient of exactly
> > that type of response more than once, I would think that you would have
> > known (and done) better.
>
> +1 here.
>
> Cut the kabbale crap : we felt bad about delaying the GLEP vote for one
> more month, and we also felt bad about pushing the decision while some
> people already complained that revised version wasn't published soon
> enough. The meetings logs are quite clear on this. So we took the median
> way, accept that GLEP with those changes nobody complained about, and
> create policy so that such things won't happen in the future. Apparently
> we were wrong on two accounts :

Alright, I wasn't trying to call it a cabal but if that's the way you guys see 
it, yeah, from the outside it looks a bit like that, considering a couple of 
council members I have talked to didn't have time to catch up on the changes 
to represent the opposing point of view.  If that was a mistake as Grant 
pointed out, that is fine, but until Grant made that statement nobody else 
from the inside was considering it a mistake.

Kurt's latest request attempts to rectify the mistake.

-- 
Corey Shields
Gentoo Linux Infrastructure Team
Gentoo Foundation Board of Trustees
http://www.gentoo.org/~cshields

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Corey Shields]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 367 bytes --]

On Saturday 19 November 2005 09:20 am, Corey Shields wrote:
> couple of council members I have talked to didn't have time to catch up on

I take this part back, turns out they aren't council members and I thought 
they were..   my bad.

-- 
Corey Shields
Gentoo Linux Infrastructure Team
Gentoo Foundation Board of Trustees
http://www.gentoo.org/~cshields

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Lance Albertson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3153 bytes --]

Thierry Carrez wrote:

> Cut the kabbale crap : we felt bad about delaying the GLEP vote for one
> more month, and we also felt bad about pushing the decision while some
> people already complained that revised version wasn't published soon
> enough. The meetings logs are quite clear on this. So we took the median
> way, accept that GLEP with those changes nobody complained about, and
> create policy so that such things won't happen in the future. Apparently
> we were wrong on two accounts :

Why do you feel bad about delaying their GLEP because of a mistake on
their part? Its their responsibility to repost the revised GLEP with
ample time before the meeting so that proper discussion can unfold. You
shouldn't feel bad for them because you would require them to wait
another month.

> - There were people that disagreed with the changes but stayed quiet in
> their corner, waiting for a revised GLEP to appear to make their
> comments, and that were caught short by its publication just before the
> meeting

The subdomain and sharing of an access for r/o cvs access was first
introduced in the revised version of the GLEP which was sent out the day
before the vote. I would have thought that the folks working on the GLEP
would consider asking infra about the logistics of that solution or that
even the council would be curious about that question as well. As far as
I can tell, neither me nor Kurt were contacted directly asking about the
logistics of their revised proposal. I agree with Kurt's previous email
that we're not trying to a pull a "we have the power so we won't do it",
its more about "we were never informed/asked about the logistics of the
revised GLEP and had things voted upon without our proper input.

> - There were people that don't have an opinion on the subject but were
> watching the council for its first bad step to be able to accuse it of
> abuse of power or worse

I certainly hope that's not the case. I respect the council and what
they are trying to do, I just feel that you guys make a big mistake by
letting this through without proper discussion. I would like to see one
or several of the council members speak out with some solution for this
problem we clearly have. What happened, happened.. lets work together to
fix this problem instead of dwelling on the past.

> I won't stand (mostly) alone defending the Council handling of the
> problem, we were just trying to find the most acceptable solution, which
> is what we were elected for. Let the vocal minority reverse that
> decision, I no longer care.

No longer caring about a decision you made? I certainly hope not.

To me, the most acceptable solution considering the circumstances should
have been "They didn't get the revised version out with proper time for
discussion. I think its best that we wait until the next meeting because
of some logistical issues that still need to be addressed in the GLEP."

-- 
Lance Albertson <ramereth@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager

---
GPG Public Key:  <http://www.ramereth.net/lance.asc>
Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1  4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742

ramereth/irc.freenode.net

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Thierry Carrez]

Lance Albertson wrote:

> Why do you feel bad about delaying their GLEP because of a mistake on
> their part? Its their responsibility to repost the revised GLEP with
> ample time before the meeting so that proper discussion can unfold. You
> shouldn't feel bad for them because you would require them to wait
> another month.

Well, there is nowhere policy on how to handle GLEPs that "will be
accepted if the following changes are made". You say it should have been
republished to -dev. We said, "we accept it but next time it should be
published to -dev at least a week before".

> The subdomain and sharing of an access for r/o cvs access was first
> introduced in the revised version of the GLEP which was sent out the day
> before the vote. 

In fact it's been introduced 4 days before, on Nov 11. Then on Nov 12,
Homer Parker submitted the revised GLEP to the council agenda. Then, on
Nov 14, realizing some people thought it should have been resubmitted
before, he posted it to -dev. On Nov 15, not one single complain was
made on the subject of the email subdomain.

> I would have thought that the folks working on the GLEP
> would consider asking infra about the logistics of that solution or that
> even the council would be curious about that question as well.

We have an infra team member in the council. And since no infra member
contested the change to have a subdomain that was required in _October_,
we thought (obviously by mistake) that it was OK for them. Our mistake
was to suppose at least one infra member would read council meeting
summaries.

>>I won't stand (mostly) alone defending the Council handling of the
>>problem, we were just trying to find the most acceptable solution, which
>>is what we were elected for. Let the vocal minority reverse that
>>decision, I no longer care.
> 
> No longer caring about a decision you made? I certainly hope not.

No longer caring enough to try to improve the way Gentoo works. I tried,
and it's not worth it. I am like two feet from the exit door, and prefer
not to comment anymore on the subject, to calm down and avoid definitive
decisions I would regret.

-- 
Thierry Carrez (Koon)
Operational Manager, Gentoo Linux Security
Gentoo Council member
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Lance Albertson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4328 bytes --]

Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Lance Albertson wrote:
> 
> 
>>Why do you feel bad about delaying their GLEP because of a mistake on
>>their part? Its their responsibility to repost the revised GLEP with
>>ample time before the meeting so that proper discussion can unfold. You
>>shouldn't feel bad for them because you would require them to wait
>>another month.
> 
> 
> Well, there is nowhere policy on how to handle GLEPs that "will be
> accepted if the following changes are made". You say it should have been
> republished to -dev. We said, "we accept it but next time it should be
> published to -dev at least a week before".

I was looking for the revised glep to discuss not the meeting notes from
the previous meeting. The GLEP should be the focus of discussion not the
meeting notes.

>>The subdomain and sharing of an access for r/o cvs access was first
>>introduced in the revised version of the GLEP which was sent out the day
>>before the vote. 
> 
> 
> In fact it's been introduced 4 days before, on Nov 11. Then on Nov 12,
> Homer Parker submitted the revised GLEP to the council agenda. Then, on
> Nov 14, realizing some people thought it should have been resubmitted
> before, he posted it to -dev. On Nov 15, not one single complain was
> made on the subject of the email subdomain.

Submitting the idea and actually submitting the revision are two
completely different things. Not a single complaint was sent because
some of us can't catch up on -dev email within 24 hours. I was actually
going to reply to it, but thought that the council would have enough
sense to see our concerns about giving the public so little time to
discuss would postpone the vote. But I didn't get to that before the
vote time because of real life constraints.

>>I would have thought that the folks working on the GLEP
>>would consider asking infra about the logistics of that solution or that
>>even the council would be curious about that question as well.
> 
> 
> We have an infra team member in the council. And since no infra member
> contested the change to have a subdomain that was required in _October_,
> we thought (obviously by mistake) that it was OK for them. Our mistake
> was to suppose at least one infra member would read council meeting
> summaries.

>From the meeting log:

15:14 <@solar> He posted to the list that this topic could be postponed.
15:14 <@SwifT> I wouldn't ask for postponal, for me the GLEP's issues
have been addressed and taken care of

[...]

15:23 <@solar> If this is not being postponed on the topic of glep41 as
said on the mailing list then I'm going with a no on this topic. So far
what I've seen of AT's and the existing AT lead for x86@ has not been
very encouraging. thus I dont think it is worth it to put the extra
workload on infra.
15:24 <@vapier> and if it were postponed, what would change your mind ?

[...]

15:27 <@Koon> anyway, he has the right to vote no, anyone reverting his
vote to follow solar ?
15:27 <@solar> the majority of you have voted yes so it still will pass.
I'm fine with that.

So, infra's 'member' on the council clearly was trying to protect our
interests and postponing the vote until we had a clear voice on the
matter. I made [1] my concerns about the topic the day before the vote.
I didn't have enough time to go through the GLEP and come back with
specifics. I was hoping that the decision would be postponed so I could
voice my concerns then.

[1] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=gentoo-dev&m=113199543120777&w=2

>>>I won't stand (mostly) alone defending the Council handling of the
>>>problem, we were just trying to find the most acceptable solution, which
>>>is what we were elected for. Let the vocal minority reverse that
>>>decision, I no longer care.
>>
>>No longer caring about a decision you made? I certainly hope not.
> 
> 
> No longer caring enough to try to improve the way Gentoo works. I tried,
> and it's not worth it. I am like two feet from the exit door, and prefer
> not to comment anymore on the subject, to calm down and avoid definitive
> decisions I would regret.

I'm sorry to hear that.

-- 
Lance Albertson <ramereth@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager

---
GPG Public Key:  <http://www.ramereth.net/lance.asc>
Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1  4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742

ramereth/irc.freenode.net

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Lance Albertson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1709 bytes --]

Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Lance Albertson wrote:

>>I would have thought that the folks working on the GLEP
>>would consider asking infra about the logistics of that solution or that
>>even the council would be curious about that question as well.
> 
> 
> We have an infra team member in the council. And since no infra member
> contested the change to have a subdomain that was required in _October_,
> we thought (obviously by mistake) that it was OK for them. Our mistake
> was to suppose at least one infra member would read council meeting
> summaries.

I forgot to mention one thing I noticed in the meeting log:

15:10 <@Koon> one question is "should have it been resubmitted to dev
for discussion before we vote"
15:10 <@seemant> the latest version of the GLEP document reflects those
changes
15:11 <@seemant> yes, what Koon said
15:11 <@Koon> I answer no, since only the mandated changes are in , but YMMV

That's assuming that the changes had been properly asked by infra if the
implementation would work. Things that look good on paper don't
necessarily work well in practice. I was hoping the postponement of the
vote would allow infra to voice its concerns about the new revised GLEP.
This did not happen, the council assumed that the implementation had be
discussed with infra (which the folks for that GLEP had not done), and
went ahead and voted upon it.

This whole thing is a failure in proper communication. We are all at
fault for that (including me).

-- 
Lance Albertson <ramereth@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager

---
GPG Public Key:  <http://www.ramereth.net/lance.asc>
Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1  4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742

ramereth/irc.freenode.net

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Matti Bickel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2999 bytes --]

Thierry Carrez <koon@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Grant Goodyear wrote:
> > Corey Shields wrote: [Fri Nov 18 2005, 10:42:30PM CST]
> > 
> >>Still screwed up.  Lesson learned, make friends with a majority of the 
> >>council, write and propose a glep the day before a meeting and then push it 
> >>through.  wow.  sounds a lot like American politics.
> > 
> > That's quite an indictment.  You've skipped right past the notion that
> > perhaps a mistake was made to accuse the Council of cronyism. 

Everybody reading the council-transcripts would eventually agree that
the GLEP was properly discussed. The rejection of the GLEP first time
was part of the conspiracy too, i spose?

Come on. I do agree that timing and communication was bad. However i
happened to ping hparker just a few days before the vote came up and
he pointed me to the svn changelog stating that the revised GLEP was
waiting there happily.

So in fact it was *not* a failure of a revised GLEP but a post to -dev.

> [...]
> So we took the median way, accept that GLEP with those changes nobody
> complained about, and create policy so that such things won't happen
> in the future. Apparently we were wrong on two accounts :

Taking the median way angers both extremes. But i regard the councils
decision as the least of 3 evils.

> - There were people that don't have an opinion on the subject but were
> watching the council for its first bad step to be able to accuse it of
> abuse of power or worse

Seeing this actually happen has driven me nuts. Hey, where's the spirit?
When i came in, i learned about finding the best technical solution to a
given problem.  However with this hick-hack my respect for a few
developers has experienced a sharp decline.

> I won't stand (mostly) alone defending the Council handling of the
> problem, we were just trying to find the most acceptable solution, which
> is what we were elected for. Let the vocal minority reverse that
> decision, I no longer care.

:(
Wake up! We are having a 90+ thread about a email subdomain issue
turning into council bashing. What the heck?! This is a plea for sanity.
Please stick to the facts and lets find the best solution for this IMO
awfully little problem.

So more to the facts.
As a AT, the main point in having a @<something>g.o adress is, that
you're easily recognized. Email from and to devs and fellow AT/HTs is
spotted faster and priorized accordingly. (The same applys to IRC, IMHO)

Infra has made it clear that anything other then <something>==NULL will
be a pain in the ass. I agree with that point. Given that two arguments,
i'll go with the @g.o adress.

But please, if there's a majority of devs disagreeing: every AT, who's
spoken up here said that they don't care about the adress. So do i.
Email is just a tiny bit of the GLEP and IMHO the least important.
However the main idea was the tree access and i'm really looking forward
to see that implemented.

Regards,
Matti

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Danny van Dyk]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Corey Shields schrieb:
| On Friday 18 November 2005 08:31 pm, Lance Albertson wrote:
|
|>No, thats not entirely true. It was submitted a few months ago and >>taken
|>to the council where it was rejected and asked to be revised. When the
|>council asked for things to put on their agenda for this latest >>meeting,
|>it was asked that this GLEP be voted upon again. At this point, the
|>revised version had yet to be shown on -dev for discussion. It wasn't
|>until a day before the vote that it was sent to -dev for discussion.
|>
|>I just wanted to get the facts straight :-) (at least from how I >>know).
|
|
| Ahh, ok   thanks for clearing that up.
|
| Still screwed up.  Lesson learned, make friends with a majority of the
| council, write and propose a glep the day before a meeting and then
| push it
| through.  wow.  sounds a lot like American politics.
Oh please Corey... Now you sound like a pissed kid.

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.
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
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)

Danny
- --
Danny van Dyk <kugelfang@gentoo.org>
Gentoo/AMD64 Project, Gentoo Scientific Project
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDf5OjaVNL8NrtU6IRAhzLAJ9Bi1xUcRj7kKE2MWaP8NbceOxuqACcDOy3
t+G1qlkXwKytmLz4Lt/Rox8=
=PeVH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Lance Albertson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3020 bytes --]

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. 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.

> 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.

> 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.

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. 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.

-- 
Lance Albertson <ramereth@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager

---
GPG Public Key:  <http://www.ramereth.net/lance.asc>
Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1  4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742

ramereth/irc.freenode.net

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Brian Harring]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5806 bytes --]

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

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re[2]: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Jakub Moc]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 692 bytes --]


19.11.2005, 23:19:41, Brian Harring wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 03:20:57PM -0600, Lance Albertson wrote:

>> 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.

/ne notes there's been no such thing like subdomains in the *original*
(rejected) GLEP...


--
jakub

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 183 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Lance Albertson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5467 bytes --]

Brian Harring wrote:

> 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.

There's far more things to worry about aside from ldap and email. I'm
hoping to list them out soon, but I have other things I'm doing this
weekend.

> 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.

What was posted two months ago is not the same as was posted a day
before the vote. I didn't see a problem with the original glep from an
infra POV, thus why I didn't say much about it.

> 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.

The revised GLEP in question was posted a day before the vote. I was
watching it, though I didn't get a chance to read through the whole GLEP
for the changes at the time since I was busy with real life issues. This
is why I stated in an email [1] that day that they should postpone
voting on it.

[1] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=gentoo-dev&m=113199543120777&w=2

> 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".

See above [1]. I asked for them to hold on the vote and that did not happen.

> 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".

Considering how the revised GLEP went through without ANY discussion
prior to the vote, I don't see why we need to. That is an issue of the
procedure used to to get this GLEP approved which wasn't done correctly.
I have yet to see a valid reason for pushing ahead for the vote (and
yes, I read the log.. see my comments in previous emails about that
logic they used).

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

What does trustees have to do with this GLEP? And yes, I was watching
the ML, but giving me 24hr to respond to a GLEP revision before a vote
is not reasonable.

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

Thats not the case, we got a revised GLEP one day before the vote and
didn't have a chance to reply reasonably.

> Sucks, but too damn bad.

I'm not going to reply to that.

> 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).

Where was it stated that it was posted and was being discussed? Just
because it was stated in a meeting log and was committed in cvs doesn't
mean I need to read cvs changelogs. I expect the information about the
GLEP i need to know about to be in the GLEP and that the revised GLEP to
be sent with ample time before the meeting at hand. This was not done
and this is why I'm frustrated with the situation.

> 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.  

We have yet to figure out how we're going to do this.

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

Huh?

> 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 not abusing our power, I'm simply pointing out the fallacy of the
events that transpired. I feel that we should not have to implement
something that was posted a day before the vote. I *was* watching the
mailing lists and I *do* try and catch these things, and I *tried* to
have them postpone the vote. But as you can tell, something was
obviously out of sync communication wise because I didn't see this coming.

> 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

*sigh* You're taking what I'm saying way too personally. All I'm after
is this vote to be properly reconsidered because of a mandate they
accepted after they accepted this GLEP. I've already tried to figure out
all the logistics of what they accepted, so I'm not doing the whole "i'm
stomping my foot down on this and not doing it".

-- 
Lance Albertson <ramereth@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager

---
GPG Public Key:  <http://www.ramereth.net/lance.asc>
Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1  4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742

ramereth/irc.freenode.net

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Brian Harring]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7097 bytes --]

On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 04:46:51PM -0600, Lance Albertson wrote:
> Brian Harring wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> What was posted two months ago is not the same as was posted a day
> before the vote. I didn't see a problem with the original glep from an
> infra POV, thus why I didn't say much about it.

Email wise, you're right- the basic issue of anoncvs/cvs ro access for 
ATs however has been in the glep from the beginning (regardless of the 
glep having a minimal req tacked into it).

That said, the subdomain bit has been available since the oct council 
meeting.  Not something that was particularly sprung, although grounds 
for arguing that it wasn't pushed out in the best manner.

That still doesn't address my point about the basic need of the glep, 
anoncvs/cvs ro being known.

> > 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.
> 
> The revised GLEP in question was posted a day before the vote. I was
> watching it, though I didn't get a chance to read through the whole GLEP
> for the changes at the time since I was busy with real life issues. This
> is why I stated in an email [1] that day that they should postpone
> voting on it.
> [1] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=gentoo-dev&m=113199543120777&w=2

Reading through it, it reads more like a comment about the process.  
It's also not an explicit request that it be delayed, which I'll 
assume is just me misreading 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".
> 
> Considering how the revised GLEP went through without ANY discussion
> prior to the vote, I don't see why we need to. That is an issue of the
> procedure used to to get this GLEP approved which wasn't done correctly.
> I have yet to see a valid reason for pushing ahead for the vote (and
> yes, I read the log.. see my comments in previous emails about that
> logic they used).

Said hole has been closed; what I'm stating is that y'all should work 
through what's available rather then a forced re-vote.  See tail end 
of email for reasoning.

> > I see this mainly as infra/trustees not watching the ML.
> 
> What does trustees have to do with this GLEP? And yes, I was watching
> the ML, but giving me 24hr to respond to a GLEP revision before a vote
> is not reasonable.

Knowing what the revisions where going to be (previous meeting) makes 
the 24 hour comment a bit off.

> > Frankly it seems like y'all didn't pay attention, and got caught with 
> > your pants down.
> 
> Thats not the case, we got a revised GLEP one day before the vote and
> didn't have a chance to reply reasonably.

Email is about the only snafu out of this whole thing that is 
reasonably questionable imo.  Concerns about load on lark, handling 
the new users, etc, no, as I stated, this glep has been around for 2 
months without infra asking what's required.

That's the crux of the "caught with the pants down".  The fact that 
the initial glep could've passed, and still there would be 
complaints/issues brought up (beyond email concerns) afterwards 
because people didn't pay attention.

> > Sucks, but too damn bad.
> 
> I'm not going to reply to that.

Probably wise, since it wasn't a friendly jab on my part (for which I 
should be duly flogged).

> > 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).
> 
> Where was it stated that it was posted and was being discussed? Just
> because it was stated in a meeting log and was committed in cvs doesn't
> mean I need to read cvs changelogs. I expect the information about the
> GLEP i need to know about to be in the GLEP and that the revised GLEP to
> be sent with ample time before the meeting at hand. This was not done
> and this is why I'm frustrated with the situation.

Again.. aside from email, the info's been out there.


> We have yet to figure out how we're going to do this.
> 
> > Email subdomain?  Go through the channels everyone else has to.
> 
> Huh?

Specifically reverting/changing a glep.  See glep1 for actual process, 
or nudge glep41 authors to revise and get council to sign off on it 
(that chunk is somewhat unspecified procedure wise).


> > 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 not abusing our power,

re-read it, not implying you are, what I'm stating is that no _group_ 
should have the ability to effectively force the council to 
revert/revote on a decision.  Doing so means the council loses the 
ability to have issues passed up to it, and have it agreed upon gentoo 
wide, and have people actually move forward on something.

Portage shouldn't have it, nor devrel, nor QA, nor infra (obviously my 
opinion).

And yes, I'm well aware some day a brain dead glep may get forced 
onto the portage group, in which case feel free to taunt me with those 
words.  I'll still stand by my statement from above, despite whatever 
nasty thoughts may be running through my head. :)


> I'm simply pointing out the fallacy of the
> events that transpired. I feel that we should not have to implement
> something that was posted a day before the vote. I *was* watching the
> mailing lists and I *do* try and catch these things, and I *tried* to
> have them postpone the vote. But as you can tell, something was
> obviously out of sync communication wise because I didn't see this coming.

*again*, beyond email concerns, the issues y'all are bringing up 
weren't sprung on you.  anoncvs/cvs ro access has been known for quite 
some time.

Restating the point, the changes were known for a freaking month prior 
to the vote.

It's not out of the blue, nor is the cvs ro requirement.

> All I'm after is this vote to be properly reconsidered because of a 
> mandate they accepted after they accepted this GLEP.

Which opens up an interesting question of how to get the council to do 
a re-vote on something, something that should be a _general_ process 
if implemented, not "we have to implement this, but we think it has 
issues so it should be re-examined".

~harring


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Lance Albertson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7089 bytes --]

Brian Harring wrote:

>>What was posted two months ago is not the same as was posted a day
>>before the vote. I didn't see a problem with the original glep from an
>>infra POV, thus why I didn't say much about it.
> 
> 
> Email wise, you're right- the basic issue of anoncvs/cvs ro access for 
> ATs however has been in the glep from the beginning (regardless of the 
> glep having a minimal req tacked into it).

Where have I disputed the cvs ro access?

> That said, the subdomain bit has been available since the oct council 
> meeting.  Not something that was particularly sprung, although grounds 
> for arguing that it wasn't pushed out in the best manner.
> 
> That still doesn't address my point about the basic need of the glep, 
> anoncvs/cvs ro being known.

See above

>>The revised GLEP in question was posted a day before the vote. I was
>>watching it, though I didn't get a chance to read through the whole GLEP
>>for the changes at the time since I was busy with real life issues. This
>>is why I stated in an email [1] that day that they should postpone
>>voting on it.
>>[1] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=gentoo-dev&m=113199543120777&w=2
> 
> 
> Reading through it, it reads more like a comment about the process.  
> It's also not an explicit request that it be delayed, which I'll 
> assume is just me misreading it.

Solar even mentioned it DURING the meeting to hold on the vote. But
everyone else thought that everything was covered and passing it
wouldn't cause a problem (which was incorrect).

> Said hole has been closed; what I'm stating is that y'all should work 
> through what's available rather then a forced re-vote.  See tail end 
> of email for reasoning.

The hole was closed after they decided on the GLEP. That doesn't make
sense. Why make a rule for it while ignoring the current situation at
hand? This GLEP was the whole reason they added that stipulation, and it
made no sense to me why they didn't apply it to this GLEP they voted
upon. They have the power to do it if it out of common sense.

>>What does trustees have to do with this GLEP? And yes, I was watching
>>the ML, but giving me 24hr to respond to a GLEP revision before a vote
>>is not reasonable.
> 
> 
> Knowing what the revisions where going to be (previous meeting) makes 
> the 24 hour comment a bit off.

To me, those revisions should be stated in the GLEP. I shouldn't be
expected to look for GLEP changes in a meeting log. If I want to know
what changed to the GLEP, I look at the glep. And yes, I could have
probably looked on the GLEP site for that, but that doesn't explain why
it was pushed in without proper -dev discussion.

> Email is about the only snafu out of this whole thing that is 
> reasonably questionable imo.  Concerns about load on lark, handling 
> the new users, etc, no, as I stated, this glep has been around for 2 
> months without infra asking what's required.

Its hard to sift through hundreds of emails a day to try and find things
like this. I expect things I need to be aware of to be labeled well or
in a proper place. And yes, we probably could/should have said something
about lark earlier, but didn't catch that before hand.

> That's the crux of the "caught with the pants down".  The fact that 
> the initial glep could've passed, and still there would be 
> complaints/issues brought up (beyond email concerns) afterwards 
> because people didn't pay attention.

Most likely, see above.

>>>Sucks, but too damn bad.
>>
>>I'm not going to reply to that.
> 
> Probably wise, since it wasn't a friendly jab on my part (for which I 
> should be duly flogged).

I was rather disappointed in the unprofessional ism of that comment.

>>Where was it stated that it was posted and was being discussed? Just
>>because it was stated in a meeting log and was committed in cvs doesn't
>>mean I need to read cvs changelogs. I expect the information about the
>>GLEP i need to know about to be in the GLEP and that the revised GLEP to
>>be sent with ample time before the meeting at hand. This was not done
>>and this is why I'm frustrated with the situation.
> 
> 
> Again.. aside from email, the info's been out there.

I read email more that checking up on cvs or the site. If its something
important, it should be posted on -dev for discussion with proper time
involved. I admit, I could have looked up the glep.

> Specifically reverting/changing a glep.  See glep1 for actual process, 
> or nudge glep41 authors to revise and get council to sign off on it 
> (that chunk is somewhat unspecified procedure wise).

After we sort out details on our end, I might do that.

> re-read it, not implying you are, what I'm stating is that no _group_ 
> should have the ability to effectively force the council to 
> revert/revote on a decision.  Doing so means the council loses the 
> ability to have issues passed up to it, and have it agreed upon gentoo 
> wide, and have people actually move forward on something.
> 
> Portage shouldn't have it, nor devrel, nor QA, nor infra (obviously my 
> opinion).
> 
> And yes, I'm well aware some day a brain dead glep may get forced 
> onto the portage group, in which case feel free to taunt me with those 
> words.  I'll still stand by my statement from above, despite whatever 
> nasty thoughts may be running through my head. :)

We're all busy, and we're all prone to miss details of happenings that
go on. If infra is going to need to implement something, I would prefer
the folks involved to either email us directly, or come in our channel
talk with with us directly about their proposal. I know I could have
followed the email/glep to get this information, but as you have seen,
we have busy lives outside of Gentoo and can't keep up with everything.
The proper thing for them to do would ask us directly about the proposal
instead of just assuming we watch every single flame email we see on -dev.

> *again*, beyond email concerns, the issues y'all are bringing up 
> weren't sprung on you.  anoncvs/cvs ro access has been known for quite 
> some time.

See above

> Restating the point, the changes were known for a freaking month prior 
> to the vote.
> 
> It's not out of the blue, nor is the cvs ro requirement.

See above

> Which opens up an interesting question of how to get the council to do 
> a re-vote on something, something that should be a _general_ process 
> if implemented, not "we have to implement this, but we think it has 
> issues so it should be re-examined".

We need to have safe guards in place so that infra doesn't get catch
like this again. I have stated many times that I know that the
information was out there for us to see, but we are human and have real
lives. We simply cannot catch everything that goes by. I ask for any
request like this in the future has a direct conversation with infra so
we see the proposal for sure.

-- 
Lance Albertson <ramereth@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager

---
GPG Public Key:  <http://www.ramereth.net/lance.asc>
Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1  4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742

ramereth/irc.freenode.net

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Brian Harring]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6254 bytes --]

On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 06:05:18PM -0600, Lance Albertson wrote:
> And yes, we probably could/should have said something
> about lark earlier, but didn't catch that before hand.

Shit happens (lark).  The appearance/concerns of cvs (specifically the 
"this won't fly if it's single key") is what I'm pointing at here.

> >>>Sucks, but too damn bad.
> >>
> >>I'm not going to reply to that.
> > 
> > Probably wise, since it wasn't a friendly jab on my part (for which I 
> > should be duly flogged).
>
> I was rather disappointed in the unprofessional ism of that comment.

Eh, I don't have the tolerance you do. :)

The phrasing was intended to make it clear that people not tracking 
what's going on, then getting bit in the ass by it are to some degree 
at fault.

See the apache complaints, and ensuing emerge --news for reasoning 
behind this one (and yes, the question of how best to push the info 
out is an issue, but it still requires proactive measures from the 
people affected).


> Solar even mentioned it DURING the meeting to hold on the vote. But
> everyone else thought that everything was covered and passing it
> wouldn't cause a problem (which was incorrect).

Solar got overruled.  majority vote...

> The hole was closed after they decided on the GLEP. That doesn't make
> sense. Why make a rule for it while ignoring the current situation at
> hand? This GLEP was the whole reason they added that stipulation, and it
> made no sense to me why they didn't apply it to this GLEP they voted
> upon. They have the power to do it if it out of common sense.
<snip>
> > Specifically reverting/changing a glep.  See glep1 for actual process, 
> > or nudge glep41 authors to revise and get council to sign off on it 
> > (that chunk is somewhat unspecified procedure wise).
> 
> After we sort out details on our end, I might do that.

I'll gladly shut up in that case.  The concern I have is that the 
council got stuck in a nasty position, and choose what they thought
was an acceptable solution (and modified things so that scenario 
should never occur again).

Reversion based upon next day ml complaints I'm not much for since 
A) the concern was there, and they made a decision (contraversial 
or not).
B) reverting the decision is doable via existing methods, a call for 
reversion on the dev ml isn't really one of them (imo).

Why am I being a stickler on this?  Reversion via ml complaints after 
the decision opens the door for vocal minorities to try and revert 
gleps they dislike, rather then having to force their 
ideas/goals/changes through normal processes (where people can nuke 
the bad idea/infighting out via normal means)

The concern _was_ leveled during the meeting, and decided to move forward.
Decision was made.  Reverting it (in this case) is a glep thing.

Asking the council to reconsider something, well, no procedure 
(frankly I don't think one is needed either), but it would have to be 
something that occurs on normal schedule, and would be dependant on 
the council agreeing to reopen discussion.  Considering the nature of 
this scenario, I *still* posit it's glep territory, through and 
through.

Note that last paragraph is not from any documentation- just a dump of 
what I think would be wise/best.



Everything following really should be chunked off into another thread 
to iron it out, since it's not glep41 related (although g41 is the 
catalyst for it).

> > re-read it, not implying you are, what I'm stating is that no _group_ 
> > should have the ability to effectively force the council to 
> > revert/revote on a decision.  Doing so means the council loses the 
> > ability to have issues passed up to it, and have it agreed upon gentoo 
> > wide, and have people actually move forward on something.
> > 
> > Portage shouldn't have it, nor devrel, nor QA, nor infra (obviously my 
> > opinion).
> > 
> > And yes, I'm well aware some day a brain dead glep may get forced 
> > onto the portage group, in which case feel free to taunt me with those 
> > words.  I'll still stand by my statement from above, despite whatever 
> > nasty thoughts may be running through my head. :)
> We're all busy, and we're all prone to miss details of happenings that
> go on. If infra is going to need to implement something, I would prefer
> the folks involved to either email us directly, or come in our channel
> talk with with us directly about their proposal. I know I could have
> followed the email/glep to get this information, but as you have seen,
> we have busy lives outside of Gentoo and can't keep up with everything.
> The proper thing for them to do would ask us directly about the proposal

> instead of just assuming we watch every single flame email we see on -dev.
Personally, I agree within limits.  It's not the case currently 
though (eg, it's not grounds for forcing a reverse of their decision 
imo).

> > Which opens up an interesting question of how to get the council to do 
> > a re-vote on something, something that should be a _general_ process 
> > if implemented, not "we have to implement this, but we think it has 
> > issues so it should be re-examined".
> 
> We need to have safe guards in place so that infra doesn't get catch
> like this again. I have stated many times that I know that the
> information was out there for us to see, but we are human and have real
> lives. We simply cannot catch everything that goes by. I ask for any
> request like this in the future has a direct conversation with infra so
> we see the proposal for sure.

This is one lack of the council compared to managers; with managers, 
at least for infra/portage their were members on the board who 
(usually) knew what was what, and could raise the concerns.

It also gave undue power to infra/portage, although that's more of a 
flaw of the TLP setup.  Current council _could_ stand to integrate 
some form of checkup from groups, but I'd be extremely unhappy if it 
was any form of actual power, versus just consulting/questioning.

Either way, modify the existing setup is fine, just be aware we're 
bound by it's rules _now_ till it's modified.
~harring

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Corey Shields]

On Saturday 19 November 2005 02:19 pm, Brian Harring wrote:
> > 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.

What about the end-user headache of having to change subscriptions/bugzilla 
accounts/aliases/etc. from username@subdomain.gentoo.org to 
username@gentoo.org should they turn dev?

> 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?".

Yeah, my bad..  Had I known that infrastructure implementation decisions could 
be decided by a GLEP with no infra input requested, I would have paid 
attention.

Besides, when I first read the glep "*TWO* months ago" there was nothing about 
email subdomains..  It was fine.. Therefore, I did not comment.

> 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.

Yup.  And as soon as it caught my eye I weighed in..  and you're not happy 
with it.  -shrug-  Next GLEP will be how to use constructive SUBJECT lines 
for people who have too much email to keep up with so stuff like this will be 
caught sooner.

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

Foundation has nothing to do with this issue whatsoever.

> Sucks, but too damn bad.

So will be finding help from infra to implement this with that attitude.  
You're not helping the situation, Brian..  Kurt and Lance have spent the past 
few hours talking about implementing this while you blast them on the list.

> 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

Okay, you have already pinged me on IRC about this since my original 
correction was not good enough for you.  I corrected my wrong in this thread, 
but I still feel that the lack of delay between the changes and the vote was 
not enough for devs to comment (specifically Lance).  I don't care if I am a 
trustee or not, that's wrong.  After your last email, I don't think you are 
in any position to comment on behaviour.  ;)

-- 
Corey Shields
Gentoo Linux Infrastructure Team
Gentoo Foundation Board of Trustees
http://www.gentoo.org/~cshields
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Brian Harring]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3771 bytes --]

On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 03:06:41PM -0800, Corey Shields wrote:
> On Saturday 19 November 2005 02:19 pm, Brian Harring wrote:
> > > 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.
> 
> What about the end-user headache of having to change subscriptions/bugzilla 
> accounts/aliases/etc. from username@subdomain.gentoo.org to 
> username@gentoo.org should they turn dev?

Same rules that already are forced upon devs when they make the 
change.

It's not really an AT specific issue.  Bugzie changes are handled by 
the devrel monkey who is converting the user over, ml, the user has to 
do the re-subscribe on their own.

If you're after changing that process, hell, that would be nice, but 
it's a global issue, not AT specific.

It's not a blocker for AT's, since it's a global issue.


> > 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?".
> 
> Yeah, my bad..  Had I known that infrastructure implementation decisions could 
> be decided by a GLEP with no infra input requested, I would have paid 
> attention.
> 
> Besides, when I first read the glep "*TWO* months ago" there was nothing about 
> email subdomains..  It was fine.. Therefore, I did not comment.

See email in response to lance.  Two months is applicable for the cvs 
requirements...


> > I see this mainly as infra/trustees not watching the ML.
> 
> Foundation has nothing to do with this issue whatsoever.

Strangely, my mentioning of it is related to my (perhaps crazy?) view 
that trustees should be watching what's going on with gentoo- the main 
comment in the email is that at least the changes were known for a 
month via the managers meeting is where the issue comes in.  You 
*should* be following the council's actions in my opinon.

Perhaps my view is flawed/stupid, but y'all are the stewards of 
gentoo.  I expect you guys to be rarely surprised by proposed changes.


> > Sucks, but too damn bad.
> 
> So will be finding help from infra to implement this with that attitude.  
> You're not helping the situation, Brian..

Kind of took that one out of context- the comment is in regards to 
waiting till after something occurs to start complaining about it.

Subdomain complaints, fine, I'm not even going to argue that one at 
this point, the actual cvs enabling, you should've known it was 
coming- being surprised by it sucks, but so does trying to revert it 
because it surprised you.


> I corrected my wrong in this thread, 
> but I still feel that the lack of delay between the changes and the vote was 
> not enough for devs to comment (specifically Lance).  I don't care if I am a 
> trustee or not, that's wrong.  After your last email, I don't think you are 
> in any position to comment on behaviour.  ;)

Still stand by the email, surprisingly.

Thing is, you haven't corrected 'your wrong', and if you had just 
*stated* the concern from above, rather then 

"Lesson learned, make friends with a majority of the council, write 
and propose a glep the day before a meeting and then push it
through.  wow.  sounds a lot like American politics."

I wouldn't be pointing to it as abhorrent behaviour that is cabal 
fodder.

Baseless accusations don't usually result in people liking what you're 
saying, even if you retracted the "council members voting on stuff they 
didn't know about" claim.

If you can't see that, well I'll shut up on the point (others have already 
pointed out it was a bs statement).
~harring

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Corey Shields]

On Saturday 19 November 2005 04:09 pm, Brian Harring wrote:
> Subdomain complaints, fine, I'm not even going to argue that one at
> this point, the actual cvs enabling, you should've known it was
> coming- being surprised by it sucks, but so does trying to revert it
> because it surprised you.

there is a big misunderstanding here..  Nobody is disputing access to the 
tree.  We all knew about that from the original GLEP.

-C

-- 
Corey Shields
Gentoo Linux Infrastructure Team
Gentoo Foundation Board of Trustees
http://www.gentoo.org/~cshields
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Corey Shields]

On Saturday 19 November 2005 01:05 pm, Danny van Dyk wrote:
> Corey Shields schrieb:
> | Ahh, ok   thanks for clearing that up.
> |
> | Still screwed up.  Lesson learned, make friends with a majority of the
> | council, write and propose a glep the day before a meeting and then
> | push it
> | through.  wow.  sounds a lot like American politics.
>
> Oh please Corey... Now you sound like a pissed kid.

As I've said before, you guys are taking my point too offensively..  There is 
a problem with the council processes that needs fixed.  That is all.

if I really wanted to act like a pissed kid I'd be sending this email from 
cshields@infra.is.better.than.all.gentoo.org

-C

-- 
Corey Shields
Gentoo Linux Infrastructure Team
Gentoo Foundation Board of Trustees
http://www.gentoo.org/~cshields
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Danny van Dyk]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Corey Shields schrieb:
|>| Ahh, ok   thanks for clearing that up.
|>|
|>| Still screwed up.  Lesson learned, make friends with a majority
|>| of the council, write and propose a glep the day before
|>| a meeting and then push it through.  wow.  sounds
|>| a lot like American politics.
|>
|>Oh please Corey... Now you sound like a pissed kid.
|
| As I've said before, you guys are taking my point too offensively..
There is
| a problem with the council processes that needs fixed.  That is all.
No, there _was_ a problem with the council process which has been
eliminated by denying to vote on GLEPs which haven't been discussed
sufficiently starting with GLEP 42.

Danny
- --
Danny van Dyk <kugelfang@gentoo.org>
Gentoo/AMD64 Project, Gentoo Scientific Project
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDg71OaVNL8NrtU6IRAkQvAJ4sKUMbnFz57oUh8Xvd13LjaqdDtQCggl3o
rhbD76T6s3jpa/F0JPn6pmw=
=kgB6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Stuart Herbert]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 702 bytes --]

On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 23:29 +0000, Kurt Lieber wrote:
> There is no technical reason why any of this is necessary and it doesn't
> provide any tangible benefits that I can see.  If a user really wants to
> know someone's role within the project, they can go look it up on the web
> site.
> 
> --kurt

+1 also.

Best regards,
Stu
-- 
Stuart Herbert                                         stuart@gentoo.org
Gentoo Developer                                  http://www.gentoo.org/
                                              http://stu.gnqs.org/diary/

GnuGP key id# F9AFC57C available from http://pgp.mit.edu
Key fingerprint = 31FB 50D4 1F88 E227 F319  C549 0C2F 80BA F9AF C57C
--

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Scott Stoddard]

Kurt Lieber wrote:
> What purpose does this serve?  This would create all sorts of confusion.
> Right now, you can meet someone in IRC and make a reasonable assumption
> that their email address is <irc nick>@gentoo.org.  This would confuse
> things horribly imo.  What about people like me that span multiple roles?
> 
> What happens when someone (again, like me) starts out in one area, moves to
> another, then still a third and finally a fourth?  We're going to be
> updating aliases all over the place and for what?
> 
> How does any of this make Gentoo Linux a better distro?  Does it reduce
> bugs?  Improve QA?  Can I add -staff.gentoo.org to my CFLAGS and get a
> 0.00001% speed increase?
> 
> There is no technical reason why any of this is necessary and it doesn't
> provide any tangible benefits that I can see.  If a user really wants to
> know someone's role within the project, they can go look it up on the web
> site.
> 
> --kurt

You're preaching to the choir here (at least in me), I don't personally 
understand why everyone doesn't just have an @gentoo.org address - it 
seems the simplest possible solution, but it was the devs that seem to 
see it as some sort of a sin.

Whatever subdomain gets implemented now is only going to be half-used 
anyway because of the number of people grandfathered in from previous 
arrangements with @g.o addresses.

Personally I can't think of the last time I saw a company that forced 
one division of its' employees to use a different email address.  Seems 
to me like telling all of the secretaries at a law firm that they have 
to use @secretaries.firm.com

That all said, I am but one person with one opinion on the matter.

Scott.

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Curtis Napier]

Kurt Lieber wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 05:44:53PM -0500 or thereabouts, Curtis Napier wrote:
> 
>>Maybe a new GLEP is in order? It makes sense to do it now since infra is 
>>going to be setting up alias' anyway. While we're at it possibly an 
>>@dev.g.o as well (as someone mentioned)? That way there is no confusion. 
>>If anyone wants to pursue this we should start a new thread to keep the 
>>issues seperate.
> 
> 
> What purpose does this serve?  This would create all sorts of confusion.
> Right now, you can meet someone in IRC and make a reasonable assumption
> that their email address is <irc nick>@gentoo.org.  This would confuse
> things horribly imo.  What about people like me that span multiple roles?
> 
> What happens when someone (again, like me) starts out in one area, moves to
> another, then still a third and finally a fourth?  We're going to be
> updating aliases all over the place and for what?
> 
> How does any of this make Gentoo Linux a better distro?  Does it reduce
> bugs?  Improve QA?  Can I add -staff.gentoo.org to my CFLAGS and get a
> 0.00001% speed increase?
> 
> There is no technical reason why any of this is necessary and it doesn't
> provide any tangible benefits that I can see.  If a user really wants to
> know someone's role within the project, they can go look it up on the web
> site.
> 
> --kurt


Fair enough, I was simply throwing the idea out there to see what people 
thought. It just seems like a lot of people want to keep a clear line of 
who is a "developer" and who isn't. It makes no difference to me but 
since I am one of the people who would be affected by it I thought it 
would be good to let you know that I don't care what my email address is 
either way. Whatever the council decides is fine with me. I trust all 
the council members to make a good decision that is best for Gentoo overall.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Homer Parker]

On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 23:29 +0000, Kurt Lieber wrote:
> There is no technical reason why any of this is necessary and it
> doesn't
> provide any tangible benefits that I can see.  If a user really wants
> to
> know someone's role within the project, they can go look it up on the
> web
> site.

	I'm guessing you didn't read the logs from the council meeting where it
got stipulated that this be done. [1] I also apologize (again) for it
hitting the list the day before it was to be voted on, and stated that
it could wait if need be. Council seemed to be pleased with it enough to
allow it to pass.

[1] <http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20051013.txt>

/me wanders off in search of his flameproof suit

-- 
Homer Parker
Gentoo/AMD64 Team
Gentoo/AMD64 Arch Tester Strategic Lead
Gentoo Linux Developer Relations
hparker@gentoo.org

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re[2]: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Jakub Moc]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1054 bytes --]


19.11.2005, 1:07:40, Homer Parker wrote:

> On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 23:29 +0000, Kurt Lieber wrote:
>> There is no technical reason why any of this is necessary and it
>> doesn't
>> provide any tangible benefits that I can see.  If a user really wants
>> to
>> know someone's role within the project, they can go look it up on the
>> web
>> site.

>         I'm guessing you didn't read the logs from the council meeting where it
> got stipulated that this be done. [1] I also apologize (again) for it
> hitting the list the day before it was to be voted on, and stated that
> it could wait if need be. Council seemed to be pleased with it enough to
> allow it to pass.

> [1] <http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20051013.txt>

> /me wanders off in search of his flameproof suit


Sorry, but the above does not make the thing any better than an *officially
approved* PITA. Does not really answer klieber's question at all, nor does it
answer the objections of other people expressed in this thread.


--
jakub

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 183 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Kurt Lieber]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 720 bytes --]

On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 06:07:40PM -0600 or thereabouts, Homer Parker wrote:
> 	I'm guessing you didn't read the logs from the council meeting where it
> got stipulated that this be done. [1] I also apologize (again) for it
> hitting the list the day before it was to be voted on, and stated that
> it could wait if need be. Council seemed to be pleased with it enough to
> allow it to pass.
> 
> [1] <http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20051013.txt>


OK, in that case, since it's been "stipulated" then I hereby suggest:

<tester>@yellowstar.gentoo.org

You can now declare godwin's law.  tyvm & hand

--kurt (who finds the very idea of "second-class devs" revolting and
embarassing)

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Grant Goodyear]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 518 bytes --]

Kurt Lieber wrote: [Fri Nov 18 2005, 06:22:28PM CST]
> <tester>@yellowstar.gentoo.org
> 
> You can now declare godwin's law.  tyvm & hand

Huh?

> --kurt (who finds the very idea of "second-class devs" revolting and
> embarassing)

I happen to agree with that sentiment.  It's just not clear to me that
it applies here.  *Shrug*

-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

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Grant Goodyear]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1639 bytes --]

Curtis Napier wrote: [Fri Nov 18 2005, 04:44:53PM CST]
> >The problem with staff is that staff who aren't ATs/HTs won't be using
> >it...
> >
> 
> I agree with this. Those of us who don't have commit rights to the tree 
> should have an @staff.g.o, people like me for instance. I happen to be 
> part of two projects but neither gives me access to the tree so I would 
> get an @staff.g.o and am fine with that. It lets people I email outside 
> of the project know that I am staff and not a developer.

I rather strongly disagree.  It is true that in the past we have used
the word "staff" to denote devs who do not have gentoo-x86 commit
access.  I've never been in favor of that terminology, however.  Devs
are devs, whether they have gentoo-x86 commit access or not.  Our doc
devs or infra devs can break Gentoo in ways just as horrific as our
devs w/ tree access can.  Infra, doc, or tree access just determines
which part of Gentoo you're allowed to break (in a rather twisted way of
looking at things).

It's terribly important to me that we not somehow end up with
first-class devs and second-class devs.  

My preference is that the subdomain chosen should succinctly reflect the
role that arch testers serve.  My personal preference would be to choose
something like "aide", "helper", "assistant", or something similar.
(Indeed, I'd have preferred "volunteer" if it weren't for the niggling
fact that we're all volunteers.)

-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

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re[2]: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Jakub Moc]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1083 bytes --]


19.11.2005, 0:58:29, Grant Goodyear wrote:

> My preference is that the subdomain chosen should succinctly reflect the role
> that arch testers serve.  My personal preference would be to choose something
> like "aide", "helper", "assistant", or something similar. (Indeed, I'd have
> preferred "volunteer" if it weren't for the niggling fact that we're all
> volunteers.)

> -g2boojum-

Once again - I don't know if it's not been clear enough so far, from the
replies on this topic: I don't have time nor desire to dig out somewhere on the
web what's the correct email I should use to contact someone... there are about
200 more or less active Gentoo devs around and the last thing I need is to
ponder upon what project/role that particular person is on. What's the benefit?
:/

Please, don't introduce such PITA.


-- 
Best regards,

 Jakub Moc
 mailto:jakub@gentoo.org
 GPG signature: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E
 Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95  B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E

 ... still no signature ;)

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 183 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Grant Goodyear]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2009 bytes --]

Jakub Moc wrote: [Fri Nov 18 2005, 06:07:48PM CST]
> 
> 19.11.2005, 0:58:29, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> 
> > My preference is that the subdomain chosen should succinctly reflect
> > the role that arch testers serve.  My personal preference would be
> > to choose something like "aide", "helper", "assistant", or something
> > similar. (Indeed, I'd have preferred "volunteer" if it weren't for
> > the niggling fact that we're all volunteers.)

> Once again - I don't know if it's not been clear enough so far, from
> the replies on this topic: I don't have time nor desire to dig out
> somewhere on the web what's the correct email I should use to contact
> someone... there are about 200 more or less active Gentoo devs around
> and the last thing I need is to ponder upon what project/role that
> particular person is on. What's the benefit?

Perhaps you should re-read the GLEP?  Or the log from the last two
Council meetings?  Nobody is suggesting that devs should have their
e-mail addresses changed to foo@subdomain.gentoo.org.  The issue is what
e-mail address to give people who are helping out Gentoo but not
actually devs.  Since these people are not going to be maintaining
packages, it seems unlikely that you're going to have to spend all that
much time trying to figure out how to contact them; just hit "r" like
you would with any other user.

Incidentally, the benefit is to make users who are actively helping
Gentoo feel like they're part of the family.  It was decided that a
straight @gentoo.org address would be confusing, though, since most
people associate those addresses with developers.  I'm fairly agnostic
on the whole thing, myself, but since the Council voted to approve the
GLEP, I was simply trying to do my best to put forth a proposal that fit
within that framework.

-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

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Luis F. Araujo]

Grant Goodyear wrote:

>Jakub Moc wrote: [Fri Nov 18 2005, 06:07:48PM CST]
>  
>
>>19.11.2005, 0:58:29, Grant Goodyear wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>My preference is that the subdomain chosen should succinctly reflect
>>>the role that arch testers serve.  My personal preference would be
>>>to choose something like "aide", "helper", "assistant", or something
>>>similar. (Indeed, I'd have preferred "volunteer" if it weren't for
>>>the niggling fact that we're all volunteers.)
>>>      
>>>
>
>  
>
>>Once again - I don't know if it's not been clear enough so far, from
>>the replies on this topic: I don't have time nor desire to dig out
>>somewhere on the web what's the correct email I should use to contact
>>someone... there are about 200 more or less active Gentoo devs around
>>and the last thing I need is to ponder upon what project/role that
>>particular person is on. What's the benefit?
>>    
>>
>
>Perhaps you should re-read the GLEP?  Or the log from the last two
>Council meetings?  Nobody is suggesting that devs should have their
>e-mail addresses changed to foo@subdomain.gentoo.org.  The issue is what
>e-mail address to give people who are helping out Gentoo but not
>actually devs.  
>
@g.o

>Since these people are not going to be maintaining
>  
>
But they are helping out Gentoo in a very direct way right?

>packages, it seems unlikely that you're going to have to spend all that
>much time trying to figure out how to contact them; just hit "r" like
>you would with any other user.
>
>  
>
It'd be more time than if it was just @g.o , that's for sure.

>Incidentally, the benefit is to make users who are actively helping
>Gentoo feel like they're part of the family. 
>
That's why i said, give them @g.o

> It was decided that a
>straight @gentoo.org address would be confusing, though, since most
>people associate those addresses with developers. 
>
Let's write a GLEP to clarify that @g.o addresses is for people who 
cooperates
(in a direct way) with Gentoo.

> I'm fairly agnostic
>on the whole thing, myself, but since the Council voted to approve the
>GLEP, I was simply trying to do my best to put forth a proposal that fit
>within that framework.
>
>-g2boojum-
>  
>

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 663 bytes --]

On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 21:13:51 -0400 "Luis F. Araujo" <araujo@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| Let's write a GLEP to clarify that @g.o addresses is for people who 
| cooperates (in a direct way) with Gentoo.

Don't forget the "... and make a reasonable commitment for a
substantial period of time". In other words, not ATs, who are ATs
because they lack the experience or commitment to be fully fledged
developers.

Far easier to withdraw the GLEP and just ask for anon cvs access for
people who need it...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Look! Shiny things!)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Lance Albertson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1226 bytes --]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 21:13:51 -0400 "Luis F. Araujo" <araujo@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> | Let's write a GLEP to clarify that @g.o addresses is for people who 
> | cooperates (in a direct way) with Gentoo.
> 
> Don't forget the "... and make a reasonable commitment for a
> substantial period of time". In other words, not ATs, who are ATs
> because they lack the experience or commitment to be fully fledged
> developers.
> 
> Far easier to withdraw the GLEP and just ask for anon cvs access for
> people who need it...

I'm actually hoping to get part of our version control repos in an
anonymous access setup in the next few months. I'm not entirely sure how
we'd implement it and what tree's we'd include and not include, but I am
 hoping to get something going soon. The only question I ask is if a 30
minute syncing of the repos sufficient for folks? (But perhaps this is a
topic better discussed later down the road, mainly curious about other
folks thoughts).

-- 
Lance Albertson <ramereth@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager

---
GPG Public Key:  <http://www.ramereth.net/lance.asc>
Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1  4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742

ramereth/irc.freenode.net

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 186 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Scott Stoddard]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Don't forget the "... and make a reasonable commitment for a
> substantial period of time". In other words, not ATs, who are ATs
> because they lack the experience or commitment to be fully fledged
> developers.
> 
> Far easier to withdraw the GLEP and just ask for anon cvs access for
> people who need it...
> 

<respectfully>

I wholeheartedly disagree.  The fact that I am an AT with aspirations 
towards becoming a full dev does not in any way imply that all ATs fill 
the same mindset.  I see the AT position as a wonderful opportunity to 
give something back to Gentoo without the added responsibility (or 
hassle) that comes along with being a full dev.  I get the feeling from 
talking to several of the other ATs that some may not wish to become 
devs -- does that mean that their contribution (direct contribution) 
should not be recognized?

Scott.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 859 bytes --]

On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 21:03:26 -0500 Scott Stoddard
<scott@cs.ubishops.ca> wrote:
| I wholeheartedly disagree.  The fact that I am an AT with aspirations 
| towards becoming a full dev does not in any way imply that all ATs
| fill the same mindset.  I see the AT position as a wonderful
| opportunity to give something back to Gentoo without the added
| responsibility (or hassle) that comes along with being a full dev.  I
| get the feeling from talking to several of the other ATs that some
| may not wish to become devs -- does that mean that their contribution
| (direct contribution) should not be recognized?

Sure, recognise their contributions, by giving them credit in
ChangeLogs.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Look! Shiny things!)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Dan Meltzer]

As an AT... albiet a very busy/cannot help as much as I'd like one...

The only useful thing I see in here is ro-cvs access.  This
facilitates testing by allowing the tester to get the ebuilds as they
are committed, instead of syncing and hoping not to get banned from
rsync servers.

I could care less about another email address, I've got enough as it is :/

On 11/18/05, Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 21:03:26 -0500 Scott Stoddard
> <scott@cs.ubishops.ca> wrote:
> | I wholeheartedly disagree.  The fact that I am an AT with aspirations
> | towards becoming a full dev does not in any way imply that all ATs
> | fill the same mindset.  I see the AT position as a wonderful
> | opportunity to give something back to Gentoo without the added
> | responsibility (or hassle) that comes along with being a full dev.  I
> | get the feeling from talking to several of the other ATs that some
> | may not wish to become devs -- does that mean that their contribution
> | (direct contribution) should not be recognized?
>
> Sure, recognise their contributions, by giving them credit in
> ChangeLogs.
>
> --
> Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Look! Shiny things!)
> Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
> Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm
>
>
>
>

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Tres Melton]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 549 bytes --]

On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 21:17 -0500, Dan Meltzer wrote:
> As an AT... albiet a very busy/cannot help as much as I'd like one...
> 
> The only useful thing I see in here is ro-cvs access.  This
> facilitates testing by allowing the tester to get the ebuilds as they
> are committed, instead of syncing and hoping not to get banned from
> rsync servers.
> 
> I could care less about another email address, I've got enough as it is :/
> 
As the newest amd64 AT that about sums up my position as well.
-- 
Tres Melton
IRC & Gentoo: RiverRat

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re[2]: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Jakub Moc]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 225 bytes --]


19.11.2005, 3:07:41, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:

> Sure, recognise their contributions, by giving them credit in ChangeLogs.

How exactly does testing stuff fit into *changelogs*, have I missed something?


-- 

jakub

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 183 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 540 bytes --]

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 03:27:13 +0100 Jakub Moc <jakub@gentoo.org> wrote:
| 19.11.2005, 3:07:41, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > Sure, recognise their contributions, by giving them credit in
| > ChangeLogs.
| 
| How exactly does testing stuff fit into *changelogs*, have I missed
| something?

"Stable on $arch, thanks to $at1 and $at2 for testing and hunting down
build issues."

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Look! Shiny things!)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re[2]: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Jakub Moc]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 889 bytes --]


19.11.2005, 3:49:46, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:

> On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 03:27:13 +0100 Jakub Moc <jakub@gentoo.org> wrote:
> | 19.11.2005, 3:07:41, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| >> Sure, recognise their contributions, by giving them credit in
| >> ChangeLogs.
> | 
> | How exactly does testing stuff fit into *changelogs*, have I missed
> | something?

> "Stable on $arch, thanks to $at1 and $at2 for testing and hunting down
> build issues."

Thanks, no... Reminds ne of the debates on forums.g.o, why emerge --changelog
feature is useless and why people file pointless bugs: too much irrelevant
stuff.

Testing ebuilds when keywording/marking stable is supposed to be
mandatory and such stuff does not belong into changelogs. (Submitting patches
is naturally completely different thing, but that's not what ATs do 99% of the
time they spend testing stuff).


-- 

jakub

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 183 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 609 bytes --]

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 03:59:15 +0100 Jakub Moc <jakub@gentoo.org> wrote:
| Thanks, no... Reminds ne of the debates on forums.g.o, why emerge
| --changelog feature is useless and why people file pointless bugs:
| too much irrelevant stuff.

Er, keywording is entirely relevant. *You* might not use it, but arch
people need to know who keyworded what and when. If anyone's doing
keywording without a ChangeLog entry they deserve a good kicking...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Look! Shiny things!)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Stephen P. Becker]

> Testing ebuilds when keywording/marking stable is supposed to be
> mandatory and such stuff does not belong into changelogs.

Sorry, but that's a big no.  People that add/remove keywords without 
making note in the Changelog deserve a massive kick in the nuts.  I'm 
not sure if you have been paying attention to Changelogs, but all of the 
sane arches have and will continue to make such entries.

-Steve
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re[2]: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Jakub Moc]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1072 bytes --]


19.11.2005, 5:30:35, Stephen P. Becker wrote:

>> Testing ebuilds when keywording/marking stable is supposed to be
>> mandatory and such stuff does not belong into changelogs.

> Sorry, but that's a big no.  People that add/remove keywords without 
> making note in the Changelog deserve a massive kick in the nuts.  I'm 
> not sure if you have been paying attention to Changelogs, but all of the 
> sane arches have and will continue to make such entries.

> -Steve

Grrrmhhh, was it so much unclear? I mean: "stable on x86" definitely belongs to
changelogs, while "stable on x86, thanks Jim for opening a keywording bug, Jack
and Jim for testing and Joe for reminding me five times to mark it finally
stable when I forgot about it" does NOT.

It's the responsibility of the developer who keyworded the thing anyway, ATs
are not allowed to keyword stuff and don't have RW CVS access, so what is the
purpose of tracking such stuff in changelogs and cluttering them? Use CVS
commit messages to track such things if you think you need it.

--
jakub

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 183 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Grant Goodyear]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1255 bytes --]

Jakub Moc wrote: [Sat Nov 19 2005, 02:11:19AM CST]
> Grrrmhhh, was it so much unclear? I mean: "stable on x86" definitely
> belongs to changelogs, while "stable on x86, thanks Jim for opening a
> keywording bug, Jack and Jim for testing and Joe for reminding me five
> times to mark it finally stable when I forgot about it" does NOT.

I personally think: "stable on $arch, thanks to Jim and Jack (Bug
#$bug)" satisfies the desired property of terseness while still suitably
acknowledging those who have done the work.  Moreover, there's been an
informal policy of acknowledging helpful users in ChangeLogs for years
now.  

> It's the responsibility of the developer who keyworded the thing anyway, ATs
> are not allowed to keyword stuff and don't have RW CVS access, so what is the
> purpose of tracking such stuff in changelogs and cluttering them? Use CVS
> commit messages to track such things if you think you need it.

I generally suggest that devs follow agriffis' lead and use a tool that
generates the CVS commit message from the ChangeLog message.

-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

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Luis F. Araujo]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:

>On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 03:27:13 +0100 Jakub Moc <jakub@gentoo.org> wrote:
>| 19.11.2005, 3:07:41, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>| > Sure, recognise their contributions, by giving them credit in
>| > ChangeLogs.
>| 
>| How exactly does testing stuff fit into *changelogs*, have I missed
>| something?
>
>"Stable on $arch, thanks to $at1 and $at2 for testing and hunting down
>build issues."
>
>  
>
This is not *only* about recognition but about the easier-to-implement 
and work-with
as a project.

subdomains will introduce more confusions where currently dont exist.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re[2]: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Jakub Moc]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1174 bytes --]


19.11.2005, 1:38:03, Grant Goodyear wrote:

> Incidentally, the benefit is to make users who are actively helping Gentoo
> feel like they're part of the family.  It was decided that a straight
> @gentoo.org address would be confusing, though, since most people associate
> those addresses with developers.  I'm fairly agnostic on the whole thing,
> myself, but since the Council voted to approve the GLEP, I was simply trying
> to do my best to put forth a proposal that fit within that framework.

> -g2boojum-

Uhm, no? Most people associate those addresses with people associated with
Gentoo, perhaps? And, most people are not interested in internal Gentoo
structure and workings, as well?

Before deciding on such proposals, it might be also wise to consult infra
people who'll have to implement and maintain such things, IMHO. And, how
exactly will be people having multiple roles handled here - still missing a
clear answer...

I'm *not* against the concept of arch testers at all, in fact I find this idea pretty
beneficial, but why do we need to complicate things and why do we need to
create third-level domain emails for that?

--
jakub

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 183 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Corey Shields]

On Friday 18 November 2005 06:15 pm, Jakub Moc wrote:
> 19.11.2005, 1:38:03, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> > Incidentally, the benefit is to make users who are actively helping
> > Gentoo feel like they're part of the family.  It was decided that a

So we give them an email account??  Is there any other purpose to that?  We 
could kill this whole debate by just sticking with the way things work right 
now.  The average "life" of an AT (before they turn full dev) is pretty short 
in most cases anyway, so giving them a subdomain email just to have to move 
it later is yet another administrative task that nobody has time for.  Let 
alone the confusion that has already been discussed, and the questions that 
remain unanswered.

I am not against them having an email account if they deserve it, but if we 
want to give them an email account it should be an all-or-nothing (@g.o or 
not) thing.

> Before deciding on such proposals, it might be also wise to consult infra
> people who'll have to implement and maintain such things, IMHO. And, how
> exactly will be people having multiple roles handled here - still missing a
> clear answer...

Jakub++  Nobody in infra is on board with this idea, so you will be hard 
pressed to find someone willing to implement it.

> I'm *not* against the concept of arch testers at all, in fact I find this
> idea pretty beneficial, but why do we need to complicate things and why do
> we need to create third-level domain emails for that?

Why not ditch the idea of yellow-starred "arch testers" and make it easy for 
*all* users to participate in the stability-validation of all of our 
packages?  Make a site where users can profile their systems and "check off" 
the ~arch packages that work for each system on an online copy of the package 
repository.  fex, Package X has 2,000 thumbs-up and no bugs reported, it 
should be safe to bump it...  No email accounts needed, and users and devs 
alike can participate the same, whether they run just a single package ~arch 
or multiple full-on systems.

This idea comes from a user in his blog:  
http://blogs.zymeta.com/roller/page/dr?entry=kde_3_4_3

(we could easily implement such a system and keep AT's around, I'm just bent 
on the sudden changes they are requiring to the rest of the way Gentoo works)

Cheers,

-Corey
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 816 bytes --]

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 13:34:10 -0800 Corey Shields <cshields@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| Why not ditch the idea of yellow-starred "arch testers" and make it
| easy for *all* users to participate in the stability-validation of
| all of our packages?

We've seen why this won't work in the past... Too few users know how to
do proper testing. We've had "please keyword, works for me" bugs for
things that will always segfault on startup. We've had several people
who think it'd be clever to automate testing reports. We've got enough
ricers out there that clearly broken things would end up getting "works
for me" spammed even more than they are already...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Look! Shiny things!)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[George Prowse]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1098 bytes --]

As these would be @gentoo.org <http://gentoo.org> people they would be
easier for devrel to tackle. Making them closer under the gentoo wing just
makes them easier to dicipline.

On 11/19/05, Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 13:34:10 -0800 Corey Shields <cshields@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> | Why not ditch the idea of yellow-starred "arch testers" and make it
> | easy for *all* users to participate in the stability-validation of
> | all of our packages?
>
> We've seen why this won't work in the past... Too few users know how to
> do proper testing. We've had "please keyword, works for me" bugs for
> things that will always segfault on startup. We've had several people
> who think it'd be clever to automate testing reports. We've got enough
> ricers out there that clearly broken things would end up getting "works
> for me" spammed even more than they are already...
>
> --
> Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Look! Shiny things!)
> Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org <http://gentoo.org>
> Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm
>
>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1668 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Corey Shields]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 495 bytes --]

On Friday 18 November 2005 07:01 pm, George Prowse wrote:
> As these would be @gentoo.org <http://gentoo.org> people they would be
> easier for devrel to tackle. Making them closer under the gentoo wing just
> makes them easier to dicipline.

No, you misunderstood...  In the theoretical site I was describing, they would 
be users..  not @gentoo.org ppl.

-C

-- 
Corey Shields
Gentoo Linux Infrastructure Team
Gentoo Foundation Board of Trustees
http://www.gentoo.org/~cshields

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[George Prowse]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1394 bytes --]

Yeah, I think a sub-domain may not be a good solution but unfortunately it
is the best at present. The site is a good idea but nothing stops it from
abuse. The suggestion that people are ATs for a short time before becoming
full devs anyway is another reason for them to be give @g.o addresses. Leave
adminstration to the least and give the specific volunteers with jobs
addresses.

If the need is to seperate the people with responsibility from those without
then there is no real solution but to give them either sub domains or leave
them outside the gentoo fold.

I think the website is a good idea but it would eventually mean that the ATs
would get the job of testing the packages that the users say are ok so that
the devs can concentrate on bugs

On 11/19/05, Corey Shields <cshields@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> On Friday 18 November 2005 07:01 pm, George Prowse wrote:
> > As these would be @gentoo.org <http://gentoo.org> <http://gentoo.org>
> people they would be easier for devrel to tackle. Making them closer under
> the gentoo wing justmakes them easier to dicipline.
>
> No, you misunderstood... In the theoretical site I was describing, they
> would
> be users.. not @gentoo.org <http://gentoo.org> ppl.
>
> -C
>
> --
> Corey Shields
> Gentoo Linux Infrastructure Team
> Gentoo Foundation Board of Trustees
> http://www.gentoo.org/~cshields
>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1813 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Corey Shields]

On Friday 18 November 2005 07:40 pm, George Prowse wrote:
> Yeah, I think a sub-domain may not be a good solution but unfortunately it
> is the best at present. The site is a good idea but nothing stops it from

I disagree that it is the best idea..   Better on my list is to just not hand 
out email addresses if they can't be @g.o

What subdomain is going to come next?  @xbox360ppcport.gentoo.org?  I'll join 
Kurt in the yellowstar domain..

-C

-- 
Corey Shields
Gentoo Linux Infrastructure Team
Gentoo Foundation Board of Trustees
http://www.gentoo.org/~cshields
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[George Prowse]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1336 bytes --]

Of course, by being restrictive to the people who wish to help long-term
that is the greatest benefit to gentoo. If the @g.o email addresses are a
problem then the subdomain @staff.g.o has been suggested. The staff
subdomain would contain almost all relevant other domains. If in the
unlikely event that somone proposes a subdomain to gentoo that couldn't be
considered 'staff' or 'developer' then that can be considered at a later
date.

In the mean time we can have a GLEP about that site you were suggesting
because that would make the ATs more efficient.

On 11/19/05, Corey Shields <cshields@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> On Friday 18 November 2005 07:40 pm, George Prowse wrote:
> > Yeah, I think a sub-domain may not be a good solution but unfortunately
> it
> > is the best at present. The site is a good idea but nothing stops it
> from
>
> I disagree that it is the best idea.. Better on my list is to just not
> hand
> out email addresses if they can't be @g.o
>
> What subdomain is going to come next? @xbox360ppcport.gentoo.org<http://xbox360ppcport.gentoo.org>?
> I'll join
> Kurt in the yellowstar domain..
>
> -C
>
> --
> Corey Shields
> Gentoo Linux Infrastructure Team
> Gentoo Foundation Board of Trustees
> http://www.gentoo.org/~cshields
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1755 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Corey Shields]

On Friday 18 November 2005 08:02 pm, George Prowse wrote:
> Of course, by being restrictive to the people who wish to help long-term
> that is the greatest benefit to gentoo. If the @g.o email addresses are a
> problem then the subdomain @staff.g.o has been suggested. The staff
> subdomain would contain almost all relevant other domains. If in the
> unlikely event that somone proposes a subdomain to gentoo that couldn't be
> considered 'staff' or 'developer' then that can be considered at a later
> date.

I would consider such a silly proposal as the staff.gentoo.org subdomain 
addresses as "unlikely", so I'm just trying to think ahead..

> In the mean time we can have a GLEP about that site you were suggesting
> because that would make the ATs more efficient.

Such a site is not a GLEP-worthy thing..  it does not directly affect the 
distribution.  But that is neither here nor there.  It is nothing I'm not 
working on anytime soon..

-C

-- 
Corey Shields
Gentoo Linux Infrastructure Team
Gentoo Foundation Board of Trustees
http://www.gentoo.org/~cshields
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: Email subdomain

[Duncan]

Corey Shields posted <200511182018.24457.cshields@gentoo.org>, excerpted
below,  on Fri, 18 Nov 2005 20:18:24 -0800:

> On Friday 18 November 2005 08:02 pm, George Prowse wrote:
>> Of course, by being restrictive to the people who wish to help long-term
>> that is the greatest benefit to gentoo. If the @g.o email addresses are a
>> problem then the subdomain @staff.g.o has been suggested. The staff
>> subdomain would contain almost all relevant other domains. If in the
>> unlikely event that somone proposes a subdomain to gentoo that couldn't be
>> considered 'staff' or 'developer' then that can be considered at a later
>> date.
> 
> I would consider such a silly proposal as the staff.gentoo.org subdomain 
> addresses as "unlikely", so I'm just trying to think ahead..

OK, just picking the end of a random stair-step to tack on my viewpoint
and a bit of a summary from that viewpoint.

1) From what I've read, the idea of "staff" is a settled question.  Infra
and other "staff" have @gentoo.org addresses and that's not up for debate.
It will continue to be that way.

2) The debate at the first council meeting reflected some concern about
AT/HTs getting "normal" @gentoo.org addresses, because a level of
commitment and discernment hasn't yet been fully proven.

3) That was resolved with the subdomain idea, which has now passed the
council (regardless of the circumstances and nil chance of something
similar happening again).

4) The problem is that the subdomain hasn't been specified, as there
wasn't really time to hash that out, so now we are doing that.  Note,
however, that the decision that it /will/ be a subdomain has already been
made (unless someone's demanding that it be revoked, and I don't read the
discussion as getting to that point, yet).

5) Whatever the issue with staff vs. developers, that's a different, and
as mentioned in (1) basically settled issue, for better or for worse.  The
idea here is that AT/HTs aren't even at the level of regular "staff", so
again, it's a different issue.

6) What AT/HTs are, as someone mentioned, are "gold star" users, if we
want to call them that.  They are recognized as being quite useful to the
arch/herd, and as potential devs sometime in the future, should they wish
to pursue it and things work out, but there's a hesitance to give them
the full blessing yet, because they haven't proven themselves yet (and
regardless, some don't want it yet, or possibly ever).  

7) Of course, "gold star" seems a bit childish, which I get the feeling
was the reason it was chosen, to drive home the viewpoint of the poster
that the whole idea IS childish.  (Never-the-less, there's perhaps an
"adult" version of the same thing, see my proposal below.)

8) Infra has expressed reluctance, and asks the question if we accept this
one, where might it end?  Legitimate question, but AFAICT, the question is
no longer whether this is a good idea or not as it's already been decided
to go ahead, but rather one of implementation, once the subdomain is
settled upon.

Now my thoughts, as one intending to become an AT at some point
and maybe, over an extended period, become a dev.  (Yes, I'm sure  Homer's
getting impatient with me, but what can I say, but my style is slow and
steady, but I'm not about to go elsewhere, either, so...)

a) I don't care one way or the other about a Gentoo address.  As someone
else said, I've got enough addresses already.  However, from what I've
read into the various discussions, the one's pushing for this, as the ones
pushing AT in the first place, have found that a gentoo.org label could at
times lessen the confusion.  The subdomain would clarify things both from
the not-developer side, and from the recognized tester side, allowing new
ATs and devs to track the status on sight, with easy verification if
necessary.  Thus, from my viewpoint, as received, this would seem to be a
convenience for the devs (including "staff") as much as for the AT/HTs.

b) With particularly points (3), (6) and (8) in mind, viewed thru the
filter of (7), it would appear to me that the best solution at this point
would be something denoting "junior" status, clearly lower than /either/
"staff" or "devs", as AT/HTs haven't  yet proved themselves, something
that both staff and devs arguably have already done.  At the same time, it
needs to be generic enough to be reused for other potential "junior" cases
in the future, thereby limiting the damage, from infra's perspective, to
the two domains (since the council already decided a subdomain was
necessary, just not which one, so it's really too late to argue that,
unless someone wants to do another GLEP recinding this one, with all the
politics /that/ would mean, just not a good idea IMO).

c) That lays out the requirements (and discussion to this point) as I see
them (and it).  Assuming I'm viewing things correctly, then, the question
now becomes "What term clearly denotes junior status, without sounding
childish?"  Put another way, "What's the generally accepted "adult"
term for student or trainee or junior member or "gold star earner"?

d) The best answer I can come up with is "intern", therefore,
"@intern.gentoo.org" (or @internee.gentoo.org, or...).  AFAIK, that's
non-demeaning, yet clearly denotes the position as a one expected to do a
/lot/ of work, but still under serious supervision and without the
authority to make any heavy decisions without going thru someone else
first.

This proposal is of course recognizing that I might at some point have
such and address myself...  I'd be comfortable with it -- actually more so
that  with a full gentoo address, until such time (if ever) that I become
a full dev, of course.

Thoughts?  Strong disagreements?  Agreement?  Points I overlooked?  A
better suggestion?  Go to it!

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman in
http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Email subdomain

[Jason Stubbs]

On Saturday 19 November 2005 17:39, Duncan wrote:
> 8) Infra has expressed reluctance, and asks the question if we accept this
> one, where might it end?  Legitimate question, but AFAICT, the question is
> no longer whether this is a good idea or not as it's already been decided
> to go ahead, but rather one of implementation, once the subdomain is
> settled upon.

If implementation details have not yet been worked out, that part of the GLEP
and any approval of it is essentially void. In fact, reading over the GLEP
as is currently posted on the website, it's absolutely full of holes. Here's
a quick list from less than a minutes glancing:

A) @(subdomain_to_be_determined).gentoo.org is indeterminate
B) What should be done with the @(subdomain_to_be_determined) email after an
   AT becomes a full dev (and presumably gets a @gentoo.org address)? For how
   long?
C) How does one become a Lead AT/HT?
D) What is a Stategic AT Lead?
E) What criteria must an AT meet to be able to receive the shortened
   probationary when moving on to becoming a full dev?
F) Do the various usages of "should" and "could" mean must?

And a few more after reading over it again:

G) What criteria must be met during the inital 30 day mentoring period?
H) What criteria are there for maintaining one's status as an AT?
I) What input does DevRel have in the process of becoming an AT?

--
Jason Stubbs
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Email subdomain

[Mike Frysinger]

On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 06:23:41PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> B) What should be done with the @(subdomain_to_be_determined) email after an
>    AT becomes a full dev (and presumably gets a @gentoo.org address)? For how
>    long?

this is in the GLEP ... it clearly states that it will become a forward
to their new @gentoo.org address.  the implied part is that when the
user feels they no longer need it, they punt it.

> E) What criteria must an AT meet to be able to receive the shortened
>    probationary when moving on to becoming a full dev?

they express interest in becoming a full dev at which point they enter
the normal 'becoming a dev' recruitment track.  why should they have to
do something special to become a normal dev ?  all devs are allowed to
be AT's.

> G) What criteria must be met during the inital 30 day mentoring period?
> H) What criteria are there for maintaining one's status as an AT?
> I) What input does DevRel have in the process of becoming an AT?

http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/base/amd64/tests/index.xml
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Email subdomain

[Luis Medinas]

On Sat, 2005-11-19 at 23:46 +0000, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > E) What criteria must an AT meet to be able to receive the shortened
> >    probationary when moving on to becoming a full dev?
> 
> they express interest in becoming a full dev at which point they enter
> the normal 'becoming a dev' recruitment track.  why should they have to
> do something special to become a normal dev ?  all devs are allowed to
> be AT's.
Indeed all arch devs do AT's job the point is just turn our job easier, recruit new devs
and improve our QA.
> > G) What criteria must be met during the inital 30 day mentoring period?
> > H) What criteria are there for maintaining one's status as an AT?
> > I) What input does DevRel have in the process of becoming an AT?
> 
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/base/amd64/tests/index.xml
The GLEP also answer this questions. Another archs should also add a ATs
reference in their project page not just AMD64 team.
-- 
Luis Medinas <metalgod@gentoo.org>
http://dev.gentoo.org/~metalgod
Gentoo Linux Developer: AMD64,Printing,Media-Optical,Xmms

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Email subdomain

[Jason Stubbs]

On Sunday 20 November 2005 08:46, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 06:23:41PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > B) What should be done with the @(subdomain_to_be_determined) email after
> > an AT becomes a full dev (and presumably gets a @gentoo.org address)? For
> > how long?
>
> this is in the GLEP ... it clearly states that it will become a forward
> to their new @gentoo.org address.  the implied part is that when the
> user feels they no longer need it, they punt it.

Missed it. Was skimming too quickly.

> > E) What criteria must an AT meet to be able to receive the shortened
> >    probationary when moving on to becoming a full dev?
>
> they express interest in becoming a full dev at which point they enter
> the normal 'becoming a dev' recruitment track.  why should they have to
> do something special to become a normal dev ?  all devs are allowed to
> be AT's.

"the mentoring period should be shortened to a minimum of two weeks" was what 
I was referring to.

> > G) What criteria must be met during the inital 30 day mentoring period?
> > H) What criteria are there for maintaining one's status as an AT?
> > I) What input does DevRel have in the process of becoming an AT?
>
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/base/amd64/tests/index.xml

Err.. what's that got to do with the GLEP?

But none of this really matters apparently because the GLEP has been approved 
and I'm just one of the "people that don't have an opinion on the subject but 
were watching the council for its first bad step to be able to accuse it of
abuse of power or worse".

--
Jason Stubbs
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Corey Shields]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1413 bytes --]

(apologies for the messed up time in my last message)

On Friday 18 November 2005 06:53 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> We've seen why this won't work in the past... Too few users know how to
> do proper testing. We've had "please keyword, works for me" bugs for
> things that will always segfault on startup. We've had several people
> who think it'd be clever to automate testing reports. We've got enough
> ricers out there that clearly broken things would end up getting "works
> for me" spammed even more than they are already...

Yeah, it's not a perfect solution, but nothing is.

I think having users systems would be profiled may help ease the ricer issue.  
fex, user A has 3 systems, and marks package B as "!WFM" on one.  devs can 
cross link that negative mark to the system profile and note that it's "-O12 
--omg-itsofast", and disregard the negative mark.  You could even take it a 
step further and setup ratings for the registered users, and those who end up 
with a set negativity don't count or something (for the ricers)..

Not saying this is something that stability or instability should be 
automatically assumed from, but that it be used as another tool.  Something 
to bridge that "poweruser" - "dev" gap.

Just openly brainstorming here..

-- 
Corey Shields
Gentoo Linux Infrastructure Team
Gentoo Foundation Board of Trustees
http://www.gentoo.org/~cshields

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1594 bytes --]

On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 19:09:57 -0800 Corey Shields <cshields@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| I think having users systems would be profiled may help ease the
| ricer issue. fex, user A has 3 systems, and marks package B as "!WFM"
| on one.  devs can cross link that negative mark to the system profile
| and note that it's "-O12 --omg-itsofast", and disregard the negative
| mark.  You could even take it a step further and setup ratings for
| the registered users, and those who end up with a set negativity
| don't count or something (for the ricers)..

The problem isn't so much people marking stuff as broken when it's not
as people marking stuff as working when it isn't. Classic example:
anything related to ricerfs or gcc-4.

See, it's a question of quality rather than numbers. One "it works"
report from someone who knows what they're doing is worth far more than
a thousand "it works" reports from random users. Expecting a large
number of average Joe types to produce useful testing reports is like
expecting a large number of average Joe types to produce a Wikipedia
article on how quantum cryptography works or a large number of average
Joe types to produce a Gentoo Wiki article on the design and internal
workings of versionator.eclass.

| Just openly brainstorming here..

There was a similar proposal from (?)rac a couple of years back. Might
be worth looking at why arch teams hated it last time around.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Look! Shiny things!)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Corey Shields]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 897 bytes --]

On Friday 18 November 2005 07:23 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> See, it's a question of quality rather than numbers. One "it works"
> report from someone who knows what they're doing is worth far more than
> a thousand "it works" reports from random users. Expecting a large
> number of average Joe types to produce useful testing reports is like
> expecting a large number of average Joe types to produce a Wikipedia
> article on how quantum cryptography works or a large number of average
> Joe types to produce a Gentoo Wiki article on the design and internal
> workings of versionator.eclass.

Fair enough

> There was a similar proposal from (?)rac a couple of years back. Might
> be worth looking at why arch teams hated it last time around.

will do

-- 
Corey Shields
Gentoo Linux Infrastructure Team
Gentoo Foundation Board of Trustees
http://www.gentoo.org/~cshields

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Marius Mauch]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1708 bytes --]

On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 19:09:57 -0800
Corey Shields <cshields@gentoo.org> wrote:

> (apologies for the messed up time in my last message)
> 
> On Friday 18 November 2005 06:53 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > We've seen why this won't work in the past... Too few users know
> > how to do proper testing. We've had "please keyword, works for me"
> > bugs for things that will always segfault on startup. We've had
> > several people who think it'd be clever to automate testing
> > reports. We've got enough ricers out there that clearly broken
> > things would end up getting "works for me" spammed even more than
> > they are already...
> 
> Yeah, it's not a perfect solution, but nothing is.
> 
> I think having users systems would be profiled may help ease the
> ricer issue. fex, user A has 3 systems, and marks package B as "!WFM"
> on one.  devs can cross link that negative mark to the system profile
> and note that it's "-O12 --omg-itsofast", and disregard the negative
> mark.  You could even take it a step further and setup ratings for
> the registered users, and those who end up with a set negativity
> don't count or something (for the ricers)..
> 
> Not saying this is something that stability or instability should be 
> automatically assumed from, but that it be used as another tool.
> Something to bridge that "poweruser" - "dev" gap.

Well, my (non-working and incomplete) stats system could probably
provide such functionality if I ever get it working.

Marius

-- 
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub

In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be
Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Thierry Carrez]

Corey Shields wrote:

>>Before deciding on such proposals, it might be also wise to consult infra
>>people who'll have to implement and maintain such things, IMHO. And, how
>>exactly will be people having multiple roles handled here - still missing a
>>clear answer...
> 
> Jakub++  Nobody in infra is on board with this idea, so you will be hard 
> pressed to find someone willing to implement it.

What I find disturbing here is that nobody found the issue interesting
enough to read the October Council decisions as to what was needed to be
changed for the GLEP to be approved. But when, one month later, those
requirements have been met and the GLEP approved, lots of people
discover that the issue is interesting and complain about it (when it's
a little too late to be changed).

I'm losing faith in Gentoo. When the GLEP was first discussed, the
general mood was that we shouldn't give ATs the same powers than we give
to devs (in particular, no right to vote for the Council), and in
consequence a need to tell them apart. The Council rejected the proposed
GLEP in that sense. Now, the mood is like the Council want to yellowstar
some part of our contributors... and the discussion happen on the same list.

You can't just ignore the discussion and the iterim decisions and
complain afterwards when the decision is taken.

-- 
Koon
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 850 bytes --]

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 10:31:23 +0100 Thierry Carrez <koon@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| You can't just ignore the discussion and the iterim decisions and
| complain afterwards when the decision is taken.

What discussion? As both myself and Grant pointed out on this list
before the meeting, there wasn't any. Yet the council decided to go
ahead and approve the thing anyway...

A large part of the GLEP process is discussion and review. The council
has chosen to have this part skipped. Sure, you're saying it won't
happen in the future, but it has happened for this GLEP and as a result
there's lots of mess. What did you expect would happen when you cut out
a core part of the process?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Look! Shiny things!)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Thierry Carrez]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:

> What discussion? As both myself and Grant pointed out on this list
> before the meeting, there wasn't any. Yet the council decided to go
> ahead and approve the thing anyway...

Discussion and intermediary decision.

The intermediary decision (during the October meeting, one month ago)
was that the GLEP would be approved, pending a list of changes. During
last month, nobody raised his voice to say this list of changes was
fundamentally flawed. Which in the gentoo-dev world, is quite outstanding.

Then those changes were added, no more, no less, so the GLEP was
approved. It's not as if the new version was a rewrite from scratch.
It's just implementation of required changes that nobody complained
about for a whole month...

-- 
Koon
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 759 bytes --]

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 12:00:31 +0100 Thierry Carrez <koon@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| The intermediary decision (during the October meeting, one month ago)
| was that the GLEP would be approved, pending a list of changes. During
| last month, nobody raised his voice to say this list of changes was
| fundamentally flawed. Which in the gentoo-dev world, is quite
| outstanding.

Well yes, because for once everyone was actually waiting for an updated
GLEP draft rather than attacking something that hadn't been written. I
realise that this is somewhat of a novelty, but it does on occasion
happen.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Look! Shiny things!)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Carsten Lohrke]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1269 bytes --]

On Saturday 19 November 2005 12:00, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> The intermediary decision (during the October meeting, one month ago)
> was that the GLEP would be approved, pending a list of changes. During
> last month, nobody raised his voice to say this list of changes was
> fundamentally flawed. Which in the gentoo-dev world, is quite outstanding.

Probably because never a revised GLEP was presented?! I think the way to 
approve a GLEP that still "needs" changes isn't acceptable. There's a lot of 
information in these lists and I suppose very few ones have the time to read 
everything, so I did not read the council meeting stuff. Nevertheless, the 
very least to expect is that a possible final GLEP gets posted and discussed 
a while before it possibly will be approved. 

Personally I really don't care about the email address, even though I don't 
understand why we should unnecessarily overcomplicate things. But the way the 
base (a GLEP in this case) of decisions get changed by the council behind all 
of us is misuse of power. Obviously this was noticed by the members of the 
council as well, but the question why you didn't postpone the decision 
stands. The GLEP process needs to be a bit more formalized as it seems.


Carsten

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re[2]: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Jakub Moc]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2927 bytes --]


19.11.2005, 10:31:23, Thierry Carrez wrote:

> Corey Shields wrote:

>>>Before deciding on such proposals, it might be also wise to consult infra
>>>people who'll have to implement and maintain such things, IMHO. And, how
>>>exactly will be people having multiple roles handled here - still missing a
>>>clear answer...
>> 
>> Jakub++  Nobody in infra is on board with this idea, so you will be hard 
>> pressed to find someone willing to implement it.

> What I find disturbing here is that nobody found the issue interesting
> enough to read the October Council decisions as to what was needed to be
> changed for the GLEP to be approved. But when, one month later, those
> requirements have been met and the GLEP approved, lots of people
> discover that the issue is interesting and complain about it (when it's
> a little too late to be changed).

Erm, what exactly could have been discussed, the revised GLEP being submitted
about a day before the council meeting? Are you expecting people to hang on
email 24/7?

> I'm losing faith in Gentoo. When the GLEP was first discussed, the
> general mood was that we shouldn't give ATs the same powers than we give
> to devs (in particular, no right to vote for the Council), and in
> consequence a need to tell them apart. The Council rejected the proposed
> GLEP in that sense. Now, the mood is like the Council want to yellowstar
> some part of our contributors... and the discussion happen on the same list.

> You can't just ignore the discussion and the iterim decisions and
> complain afterwards when the decision is taken.

I've already mentioned that I don't oppose to AT concept and making them
official Gentoo stuff (and a couple of people did that as well), but drawing
the distinction around an email address, resulting in troubles for
infrastructure and hassle for users/other devs has not been properly considered
apparently; still waiting for someone to show a single benefit of such an
arrangement.

Email address is a means of communication with people, not a *power*. If
anyone's interested in/does care for what's the exact role of that particular
person in Gentoo, that's what roll-call is for. AT or not, any person w/
@gentoo.org email address is representing Gentoo, users don't care what's the
difference between ATs, forums staff and full devs and I don't see why exactly
they should even care. Users also don't care if someone has CVS commit privs or
voting rights. These are internal Gentoo things, email address is not playing
any role in that.

Now, we might we perhaps move the focus to more important issues jstubbs
mentioned in his last email, expecting that any implementation of the now
approved GLEP wrt the email addresses won't be pushed in a similar way the
whole revised GLEP has been, until infra issues and usefulness of this are
sorted out/reconsidered at least.


-- 

jakub

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 183 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Thierry Carrez]

Jakub Moc wrote:

> Erm, what exactly could have been discussed, the revised GLEP being submitted
> about a day before the council meeting? Are you expecting people to hang on
> email 24/7?

No, but I surely expect people interested in the discussion to read the
last month council meeting decisions. See my answer to Ciaran.

> Email address is a means of communication with people, not a *power*. If
> anyone's interested in/does care for what's the exact role of that particular
> person in Gentoo, that's what roll-call is for. AT or not, any person w/
> @gentoo.org email address is representing Gentoo, [...]

Well, I'd tend to lean in your direction, but read the discussion (the
original one, when teh GLEP was originally submitted) and you will see
quite a lot of people who disagree with you. The fact that you're the
vocal ones today doesn't mean you represent everyone. In fact, that's
what the council members have been elected for. To take decisions on
things where no consensus is reached.

> Now, we might we perhaps move the focus to more important issues jstubbs
> mentioned in his last email, expecting that any implementation of the now
> approved GLEP wrt the email addresses won't be pushed in a similar way the
> whole revised GLEP has been, until infra issues and usefulness of this are
> sorted out/reconsidered at least.

75% of his email is about things that were in the original GLEP. Why
didn't he raise his voice at that time ?

-- 
Koon
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 605 bytes --]

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 12:09:55 +0100 Thierry Carrez <koon@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| 75% of his email is about things that were in the original GLEP. Why
| didn't he raise his voice at that time ?

Oh, lots of people objected to the original GLEP. There was a rather
long thread about it on -dev. They went ahead and submitted it to the
council anyway, ignoring feedback and ignoring questions as to why it
was submitted with issues outstanding.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Look! Shiny things!)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Jason Stubbs]

On Saturday 19 November 2005 20:09, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Jakub Moc wrote:
> > Now, we might we perhaps move the focus to more important issues jstubbs
> > mentioned in his last email, expecting that any implementation of the now
> > approved GLEP wrt the email addresses won't be pushed in a similar way
> > the whole revised GLEP has been, until infra issues and usefulness of
> > this are sorted out/reconsidered at least.
>
> 75% of his email is about things that were in the original GLEP. Why
> didn't he raise his voice at that time ?

As Ciaran said in the other thread, I was waiting for (at least) the next 
round. I saw very little agreement in the original thread so didn't give it 
the time for a viewing; just as in the `emerge --news` thread.

I honestly don't see why you're defending the council's hasty decision when 
the council members all knew that the timing was bad while the decision was 
being hasted. The statement that it wouldn't happen again is evidence of 
that.

--
Jason Stubbs
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Council Responsibilities (was: Email subdomain)

[Kurt Lieber]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1468 bytes --]

On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 10:31:23AM +0100 or thereabouts, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> What I find disturbing here is that nobody found the issue interesting
> enough to read the October Council decisions as to what was needed to be
> changed for the GLEP to be approved. 

I think there's some validity to this point, but I actually hold the
members of the council at least partially repsonsible for the lack of
communication.

<my opinion>
The council is not only responsible for making decisions when consensus
cannot be reached.  They're also responsible for proactive communication.
I don't think it's reasonable to expect all devs to read through full IRC
transcripts, sift out the nonsense, distill it down to its salient points
and then decide how it fits with their own particular views on Gentoo. 

The council needs to take a more active role in posting meeting minutes and
proactively communicating with the dev community, rather than expecting
everyone to come to them to figure out what's going on.
</my opinion>

> You can't just ignore the discussion and the iterim decisions and
> complain afterwards when the decision is taken.

You can't reasonably expect all Gentoo devs to read through unfiltered IRC
logs to figure out what discussion went on.

And, just for the record, s/Gentoo Council/Gentoo Trustees/ and I feel the
exact same way -- we, as trustees, need to do a better job about
communicating as well.

--kurt



[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Council Responsibilities (was: Email subdomain)

[Kurt Lieber]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 467 bytes --]

On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 01:57:07PM +0000 or thereabouts, Kurt Lieber wrote:
> You can't reasonably expect all Gentoo devs to read through unfiltered IRC
> logs to figure out what discussion went on.

As was just pointed out to me on IRC, a meeting summary was apparently
posted to gentoo-dev which I missed.  So, I apologize for that.

A suggestion would be to post those same meeting summaries on the council
page since that's where I went to look for them.

--kurt

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Luis F. Araujo]

Jakub Moc wrote:

>19.11.2005, 0:58:29, Grant Goodyear wrote:
>
>  
>
>>My preference is that the subdomain chosen should succinctly reflect the role
>>that arch testers serve.  My personal preference would be to choose something
>>like "aide", "helper", "assistant", or something similar. (Indeed, I'd have
>>preferred "volunteer" if it weren't for the niggling fact that we're all
>>volunteers.)
>>    
>>
>
>  
>
>>-g2boojum-
>>    
>>
>
>Once again - I don't know if it's not been clear enough so far, from the
>replies on this topic: I don't have time nor desire to dig out somewhere on the
>web what's the correct email I should use to contact someone... there are about
>200 more or less active Gentoo devs around and the last thing I need is to
>ponder upon what project/role that particular person is on. What's the benefit?
>:/
>
>Please, don't introduce such PITA.
>
>
>  
>
What is the problem of giving them @g.o addresses?
Why exactly do we need the distinction? (sorry, i can't see any benefit 
but more confusion).
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Mike Frysinger]

On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 09:09:29PM -0400, Luis F. Araujo wrote:
> What is the problem of giving them @g.o addresses?

read the first meeting where GLEP 41 was covered ...
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Kurt Lieber]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1134 bytes --]

On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 05:33:17AM +0000 or thereabouts, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 09:09:29PM -0400, Luis F. Araujo wrote:
> > What is the problem of giving them @g.o addresses?
> 
> read the first meeting where GLEP 41 was covered ...

If I'm understanding it correctly, the concern was that by giving folks
"real" gentoo.org addresses if they were "only" doing arch testing, there
would be no incentive for them to contribute any more than that.

Two points to make:

* There are a lot of Gentoo devs right now with full gentoo.org addresses
  who don't do squat for this project, so exactly what bar are we holding
  these arch testers to?
* Anyone who decides to volunteer more of their time to our project *just*
  so they can have their own shiny gentoo.org address isn't someone I
  personally want on this project.  If they don't have more motivation for
  doing it than that, they don't belong here.

Should staff.gentoo.org ride at the back of the bus?  Do we need to set up
a separate CVS repository for them so they don't accidentally mix bits with
the pure bloods? 

--kurt

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Mike Frysinger]

On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 05:54:44AM +0000, Kurt Lieber wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 05:33:17AM +0000 or thereabouts, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 09:09:29PM -0400, Luis F. Araujo wrote:
> > > What is the problem of giving them @g.o addresses?
> > 
> > read the first meeting where GLEP 41 was covered ...
> 
> If I'm understanding it correctly, the concern was that by giving folks
> "real" gentoo.org addresses if they were "only" doing arch testing, there
> would be no incentive for them to contribute any more than that.

not really ... more like handing out @gentoo.org addresses to people
was becoming a gimmick.  i'm quite proud to have a @gentoo.org e-mail
and dont really like the idea of trivializing it.

> * There are a lot of Gentoo devs right now with full gentoo.org addresses
>   who don't do squat for this project, so exactly what bar are we holding
>   these arch testers to?

this is why we have been retiring people.  if a Gentoo dev is useless, 
then lets go with iggy's GLEP and vote the worthless cruft off the 
island.

being a 'full dev' implies you can be held accountable and are 
required to fulfill a significant amount of responsibility.  AT's dont 
generally want that level of commitment.  i'm not saying that what 
they contribute is meaningless (they have a useful role in the Gentoo 
project), just that i'd like to think that i, and other 'full devs', 
take it to the next level.

uNF
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Sven Vermeulen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3195 bytes --]

On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 09:09:29PM -0400, Luis F. Araujo wrote:
> What is the problem of giving them @g.o addresses?
> Why exactly do we need the distinction? (sorry, i can't see any benefit 
> but more confusion).

The GLEP was originally created to help the architecture testers with a
specific privilege: read-only CVS access. This would allow them to improve 
the quality of the ebuilds sooner, help the architecture teams identify
working (and perhaps even more important, not-working) tools and perform
tests on the global system to make sure the distribution is in top-notch
shape.

The e-mail address was not that important, but was decided to bring it in
"the package" because it would be some sort of appreciation to those users.

One general idea was that arch testers wouldn't be developers because they
have no formal obligation to the Gentoo project: we don't expect them to put
in x hours a week in Gentoo, read the gentoo-core and -dev mailinglists or 
even catch up with most of the events that happen in Gentoo (like GLEPs and 
such). This is also a request from the arch testers, because many of them
*can't* devote much time to Gentoo anyway.

That sentiment is reflected in using a subdomain address, and from what we
heard no tester had any problems with this (the e-mail addy is far less
important than the rest of the GLEP).

There was never an idea of marking one type of developer different from
another (this was in fact specifically rejected in the first meeting) but
rather giving non-developers some appreciation. Perhaps the proposed
appreciation is misplaced - fine, if that is the sentiment, we'll try to get
a better one. 

One (important) part of the GLEP is the request that the arch tester has
passed the Staff Quiz and that a probation period should be passed before
read-only CVS access is given. I'm personally wondering how close this comes
to becoming a real developer (which, iirc, is something the trustees should
be called upon as the Foundation should keep track of "what" defines a
"Gentoo Developer", as developers have voting rights on the Foundation
board). As I said before, the arch testers themselves aren't asking for
being a developer but rather for additional tools to help them do their
work.

I've said it in the first meeting and I'll reiterate: what is the sentiment
of the arch testers in this case (if they are still reading this thread)?

Wkr,
      Sven Vermeulen

PS I would be quite surprised if there is *one* arch tester who feels good
   with this entire thread; it doesn't show of much appreciation between
   people. There is a huge difference between saying that a group has "made
   an unfortunate decision" or "did not grasp the essence of the proposal
   and situation needed to make a good decision", and "abuse of powers".

PPS
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0670883395/002-5294388-6434402?v=glance&n=283155&s=books&v=glance

-- 
  Gentoo Foundation Trustee          |  http://foundation.gentoo.org
  Gentoo Documentation Project Lead  |  http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/gdp
  Gentoo Council Member  

  The Gentoo Project   <<< http://www.gentoo.org >>>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Scott Stoddard]

Thanks hparker for letting me know about this part of the thread and a 
call for opinions from ATs.

Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> The GLEP was originally created to help the architecture testers with a
> specific privilege: read-only CVS access. This would allow them to improve 
> the quality of the ebuilds sooner, help the architecture teams identify
> working (and perhaps even more important, not-working) tools and perform
> tests on the global system to make sure the distribution is in top-notch
> shape.

And this is certainly still the most important part of the whole thing.

> The e-mail address was not that important, but was decided to bring it in
> "the package" because it would be some sort of appreciation to those users.

Until recently I may have agreed with that sentiment, but honestly I can 
now see several ways that the email address would help to cut down 
confusion and make the whole operation less of a PITA.

1.  The identification of ATs in b.g.o by an @g.o address allows devs 
and other ATs to quickly identify who is and is not a 'trusted' source 
of information.  This may not seem challenging now, but as the number of 
ATs increases I fear it will become so.  We currently have 20 active ATs 
with amd64 and I know there's at least one more in the pipe right now -- 
it gets hard to remember everyone.

2.  As (I would like to think) part of our responsibility is to answer 
questions on the IRC channels, as is the case with the devs, it makes it 
easier from a user standpoint to contact one of us by email working on 
the assumption that our address is nick@g.o as opposed to everyone 
asking for the information over and over again.

> One general idea was that arch testers wouldn't be developers because they
> have no formal obligation to the Gentoo project: we don't expect them to put
> in x hours a week in Gentoo, read the gentoo-core and -dev mailinglists or 
> even catch up with most of the events that happen in Gentoo (like GLEPs and 
> such). This is also a request from the arch testers, because many of them
> *can't* devote much time to Gentoo anyway.

Very true.

> That sentiment is reflected in using a subdomain address, and from what we
> heard no tester had any problems with this (the e-mail addy is far less
> important than the rest of the GLEP).

(Admittedly, I joined the ranks of the ATs after the inital GLEP and 
council meeting)

I have a problem with the subdomain -- actually a few.  Most of my 
issues here are the same as have been presented earlier in the thread 
dealing mainly with the extensibility of the whole thing.  As kurt 
pointed out, what happens when someone occupies multiple roles?  Do we 
just provide every email address and alias ourselves like crazy?

For those ATs that are going to become devs, it seems especially foolish 
as we would be given one address, which will be used all over b.g.o, 
only to have to switch to another one within a period of a couple of 
months thereby building up a cruft of aliases which will have to 
realistically remain as long as we stay with the organization.  I mean, 
it's obviously not my job to maintain that, but it doesn't seem very 
forward-thinking.

Also, when I'm not doing my research for school or working on Gentoo 
stuff I work for a great company in Canada called Canadian Tire.  If I 
want to email someone in the mailroom at our head office, I send an 
email to name@cantire.com; but here's the kicker, if I want to email the 
CEO, I send an email to name@cantire.com.

But wait you say!  Canadian Tire is a corporation and people are paid to 
work directly for the company and therefore everyones' email should be 
@cantire.com.  Well, what about the United Way - one of the biggest 
volunteer organizations in the world (and one I spent many years with). 
  Turns out that you can reach anyone there at name@unitedway.ca, 
manager or secretary or Jo Blo community representative alike.

My point here being that I have a problem with designs that set an 
overlord/underling pattern in place.  I feel that it represents the 
organization as a whole badly.  Somehow I had this belief that if we all 
do work directly for gentoo, then why wouldn't we just be nick@g.o?

> One (important) part of the GLEP is the request that the arch tester has
> passed the Staff Quiz and that a probation period should be passed before
> read-only CVS access is given. I'm personally wondering how close this comes
> to becoming a real developer (which, iirc, is something the trustees should
> be called upon as the Foundation should keep track of "what" defines a
> "Gentoo Developer", as developers have voting rights on the Foundation
> board). As I said before, the arch testers themselves aren't asking for
> being a developer but rather for additional tools to help them do their
> work.
> 
> I've said it in the first meeting and I'll reiterate: what is the sentiment
> of the arch testers in this case (if they are still reading this thread)?

No matter what comes of all this (we do or do not get ro cvs, same for 
emails) I'm going to continue to do my work.  I mean, my motivation for 
joining the organization in the first place has not changed -- I want to 
give back to gentoo because I have enjoyed using it all these years and 
it is only through the RSI of the volunteers that it continues to get 
better and better all the time.

That said, the ro cvs is but a tool to help in our work, and I'm a big 
fan of tools to make jobs faster and easier.  Email addresses are both a 
tool and a point of recognition and in accordance have a two-fold benefit.

> 
> Wkr,
>       Sven Vermeulen
> 
> PS I would be quite surprised if there is *one* arch tester who feels good
>    with this entire thread; it doesn't show of much appreciation between
>    people. There is a huge difference between saying that a group has "made
>    an unfortunate decision" or "did not grasp the essence of the proposal
>    and situation needed to make a good decision", and "abuse of powers".

Well, it has certainly shown me a darker side of the inside of Gentoo. 
Plus, it's not all that comforting when people debate about your 
existence.  I worked about 10 hours this week on Gentoo stuff (it's all 
the time I could afford); not stuff for me -- I couldn't personally care 
at all if xcb or rman work on amd64 as they're applications that I don't 
have a particular use for, but I'm more than happy to put in the time to 
improve our arch support ... because it's. my. job.  Then to be told 
that few people actually want to recognize that work is a little 
disheartening.

Scott Stoddard
deltacow@something.something
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[George Prowse]

On 19/11/05, Sven Vermeulen <swift@gentoo.org> wrote:
> I've said it in the first meeting and I'll reiterate: what is the sentiment
> of the arch testers in this case (if they are still reading this thread)?
>
Anything that makes us do our job better and makes our lives easier is
a good thing. Thats how I feel.

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[George Prowse]

On 19/11/05, George Prowse <cokehabit@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 19/11/05, Sven Vermeulen <swift@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > I've said it in the first meeting and I'll reiterate: what is the sentiment
> > of the arch testers in this case (if they are still reading this thread)?
> >
> Anything that makes us do our job better and makes our lives easier is
> a good thing. Thats how I feel.
>
Adding on to that, the mud slinging and conspiracy theories in this
thread benefit no-one, especially those looking at Gentoo from the
outside in. I see more "Who Killed JR?" than "this is good/bad
because..."

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 697 bytes --]

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 22:08:14 +0000 George Prowse <cokehabit@gmail.com>
wrote:
| Adding on to that, the mud slinging and conspiracy theories in this
| thread benefit no-one, especially those looking at Gentoo from the
| outside in. I see more "Who Killed JR?" than "this is good/bad
| because..."

Pfff, anyone looking at Gentoo from the outside in will see that a) our
management is a mess, and b) we can still stick out a decent end
product despite of that. Since we're an open project, what's the point
in lying to our users?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Look! Shiny things!)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Mike Cvet]

Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> As I said before, the arch testers themselves aren't asking for
> being a developer but rather for additional tools to help them do their
> work.
> 
> I've said it in the first meeting and I'll reiterate: what is the sentiment
> of the arch testers in this case (if they are still reading this thread)?
> 
> Wkr,
>       Sven Vermeulen
> 
> PS I would be quite surprised if there is *one* arch tester who feels good
>    with this entire thread; it doesn't show of much appreciation between
>    people. There is a huge difference between saying that a group has "made
>    an unfortunate decision" or "did not grasp the essence of the proposal
>    and situation needed to make a good decision", and "abuse of powers".
> 

By far and large, the most important feature of that GLEP is the cvs-ro
access which would allow us as ATs to get updates to the tree as quickly
as possible, and (as someone mentioned previously) avoid getting banned
from the rsync servers for trying to do so.

In actuality, the email address isn't that big of a deal - I acknowledge
that it was put in the GLEP by the AMD64 devs as a form of recognition
for the work that we do; but it server other purposes as well - namely,
recognition on bugzilla that we were in fact members of an arch team.
This would save developers the trouble of looking our email addresses up
in a list on the arch team page, and prevent users from submitting
'copycat' bugzilla reports about the stability of packages, not
realizing that these bugs were actually submitted by arch testers.

Frankly, I (not speaking for the rest of the testers, but I'm sure they
agree to some extent) didn't expect this to explode into the issue it
has become, and don't really care what domain name we get on an address
- we would be happy to get one at all. If the GLEP needs to be delayed
again to make everyone happy, that's fine with me. There was obviously
some miscommunication over the whole situtation, and I don't think that
that is any reason for people to get violent.

Cv
}

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Lares Moreau]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1498 bytes --]

> I've said it in the first meeting and I'll reiterate: what is the sentiment
> of the arch testers in this case (if they are still reading this thread)?

I'm a AT for x86, and I am still reading the thread. 

That being said,  Do I feel it is Necessary for me to get a @g.o
account? Plain and simple, No.

However do I feel it is benificial, Yes. I believe it makes it easier to
converse via email. I have on many occasions had to give out my email to
people via IRC. Its an annoyance, that is 'easily' subverted by having
an @g.o account.  There have been arguments made about ease of checking
'what type of validity' should be giving to a bug, based upon email. And
it's expidition of preliminary bug-wrangling. These are valid points,
and I agree.  IMO I think @g.o would be good for the intergration of
AT/HT's into the realm of gentoo. (Look elsewhere for the
<subdomain>.g.o arguments.)

As for the ro access to CVS.  I don't use it now, but if I had it I
would probably use it. IMO CVS ro access is a Chicken-egg issue,
- "you don't need it!"
- "if I had it I would use it!"
So I won't get in that war.

The more tools I have, the more I can do.

Later Days

-- 
Lares Moreau <lares.moreau@gmail.com>  | LRU: 400755 http://counter.li.org
Gentoo x86 Arch Tester                 |               ::0 Alberta, Canada
Public Key: 0D46BB6E @ subkeys.pgp.net |           Encrypted Mail Prefered
Key fingerprint = 0CA3 E40D F897 7709 3628  C5D4 7D94 483E 0D46 BB6E

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Patrick McLean]

Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 09:09:29PM -0400, Luis F. Araujo wrote:
> 
>>What is the problem of giving them @g.o addresses?
>>Why exactly do we need the distinction? (sorry, i can't see any benefit 
>>but more confusion).
> 
> 
> The GLEP was originally created to help the architecture testers with a
> specific privilege: read-only CVS access. This would allow them to improve 
> the quality of the ebuilds sooner, help the architecture teams identify
> working (and perhaps even more important, not-working) tools and perform
> tests on the global system to make sure the distribution is in top-notch
> shape.
> 
Read-only CVS would make my life easier, as others have said it would 
let me keep up to date without risking being banned for rsyncing every 
30 minutes.

> The e-mail address was not that important, but was decided to bring it in
> "the package" because it would be some sort of appreciation to those users.
> 
I agree, the email address is certainly not necessary, but as a couple 
of devs have mentioned before, it might make identifying arch testers in 
b.g.o easier. I don't know what the implementation details would be, but 
maybe making a flag for arch testers in bugzilla could serve that 
purpose as well.

> One general idea was that arch testers wouldn't be developers because they
> have no formal obligation to the Gentoo project: we don't expect them to put
> in x hours a week in Gentoo, read the gentoo-core and -dev mailinglists or 
> even catch up with most of the events that happen in Gentoo (like GLEPs and 
> such). This is also a request from the arch testers, because many of them
> *can't* devote much time to Gentoo anyway.

I don't and can't read -core, but I do keep an eye on -dev. I try to put 
what time I can into testing, but realistically I don't have huge 
volumes of free time, though I am hoping to eventually be a full dev.

> 
> PS I would be quite surprised if there is *one* arch tester who feels good
>    with this entire thread; it doesn't show of much appreciation between
>    people. There is a huge difference between saying that a group has "made
>    an unfortunate decision" or "did not grasp the essence of the proposal
>    and situation needed to make a good decision", and "abuse of powers".
> 
> PPS

This thread has had a disturbing amount of bickering, and there appears 
to be a bit of a sentiment that arch testers don't contribute anything 
more than a normal user. I have filed and commented on more bugs in the 
week since I became an arch tester than I had total in the 3 years I 
have been using Gentoo before that.

The email addresses are also a side point of this whole discussion, it 
won't make testing anywhere near as much easier as ro CVS access would.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Corey Shields]

On Saturday 19 November 2005 02:18 pm, Patrick McLean wrote:
> This thread has had a disturbing amount of bickering, and there appears
> to be a bit of a sentiment that arch testers don't contribute anything
> more than a normal user. I have filed and commented on more bugs in the
> week since I became an arch tester than I had total in the 3 years I
> have been using Gentoo before that.

Please don't get the wrong impression..  The bickering is not about whether 
ATs get to have their own repo/service to sync from, nor about whether they 
deserve email accounts, it is about implementation of those, and how the 
council is handling it.  

Personally, I am fine with the idea of a repo and fine with the email 
accounts.

-C

-- 
Corey Shields
Gentoo Linux Infrastructure Team
Gentoo Foundation Board of Trustees
http://www.gentoo.org/~cshields
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Tres Melton]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4869 bytes --]

On Sat, 2005-11-19 at 20:48 +0100, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 09:09:29PM -0400, Luis F. Araujo wrote:
> > What is the problem of giving them @g.o addresses?
> > Why exactly do we need the distinction? (sorry, i can't see any benefit 
> > but more confusion).
> 
> One (important) part of the GLEP is the request that the arch tester has
> passed the Staff Quiz and that a probation period should be passed before
> read-only CVS access is given. I'm personally wondering how close this comes
> to becoming a real developer (which, iirc, is something the trustees should
> be called upon as the Foundation should keep track of "what" defines a
> "Gentoo Developer", as developers have voting rights on the Foundation
> board). As I said before, the arch testers themselves aren't asking for
> being a developer but rather for additional tools to help them do their
> work.

I not only took the staff quiz but the ebuild one as well (I think all
of the amd64 AT had to) and my primary goals of doing so were to get a
bit more credibility in bugzy and CVS access (ro).  After spending a bit
more time in bugzy I really would like to be able to see what comments
are coming from other ATs as easily as I can tell which comments are
from the devs.  There have been a couple of developers that have tried
to recruit me and although I think I have pretty good computer/Linux
skills I still have a lot to learn about the internals of Gentoo.  I
intend to become a developer when I learn a bit more so I just consider
an AT as an interim step in becoming a dev but many ATs want to stay at
that level for whatever their reasons.  (I can certainly understand the
desire NOT to HAVE to follow these long threads. :)  If ATs get a @g.o
address the same problem will arise with determining the difference
between an AT with similar experience to me and a developer with much
more experience than me -- the need to refer to an external list.  For
that reason I would prefer to have sub-domain addresses.  

I think that there should be other sub-domains too but the current
people should be left alone under a grandfather clause.  That would also
help to see what people are working on what.

staff.gentoo.org 		forum staff
amd64-at.gentoo.org		Arch testers for the amd64 platform
contributer.gentoo.org		People that donate $$$ to Gentoo
retired.gentoo.org		A thanks for helping earlier domain

For the developers like ferringb, solar, vapier, etc. that have many
roles perhaps they could have the subdomains forward to their
@gentoo.org address.  But then again that complicates things for the
-infra team which I don't want to do.  That is why I've tried to keep
quiet.  There is still quite a bit for me to learn.

Earlier vapier said:  "AT's dont generally want that level of
commitment.  i'm not saying that what they contribute is meaningless
(they have a useful role in the Gentoo project), just that i'd like to
think that i, and other 'full devs', take it to the next level."

While I believe that some AT's don't want that level of commitment I
don't think that is true in the general sense.  I think most of the AT's
from the amd64 team are in the process of learning what it takes to
truly be a developer before we are held accountable for the inevitable
mistakes that we will make while learning.  I just pray that I don't
have to get to vapier's level before becoming a devel.  He sets the bar
at a very high level for both activity and skill (as do many other devs
-- but not all).

deltacow stated that in IRC...  and my response to that is: "that is
what IRC cloaks are for".  Voice is used to mark AT's in #gentoo-amd64
but the voice is used mostly for tor users in #gentoo.  I don't want to
open a new can of worms by bringing in IRC but there really is no
standardization throughout the channels and I think that is the way that
most people want to keep it.  I'm not suggesting anything until I learn
more.

Again, the ro-cvs access is what I want most from the GLEP and I offer
this opinion because I was asked to.  Thanks all,

> I've said it in the first meeting and I'll reiterate: what is the sentiment
> of the arch testers in this case (if they are still reading this thread)?
> 
> Wkr,
>       Sven Vermeulen
> 
> PS I would be quite surprised if there is *one* arch tester who feels good
>    with this entire thread; it doesn't show of much appreciation between
>    people. There is a huge difference between saying that a group has "made
>    an unfortunate decision" or "did not grasp the essence of the proposal
>    and situation needed to make a good decision", and "abuse of powers".
> 
> PPS
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0670883395/002-5294388-6434402?v=glance&n=283155&s=books&v=glance

-- 
Tres Melton
IRC & Gentoo: RiverRat

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Brian Harring]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1777 bytes --]

On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 03:27:52PM -0700, Tres Melton wrote:
> staff.gentoo.org 		forum staff
> amd64-at.gentoo.org		Arch testers for the amd64 platform
> contributer.gentoo.org		People that donate $$$ to Gentoo
> retired.gentoo.org		A thanks for helping earlier domain
> 
> For the developers like ferringb, solar, vapier, etc. that have many
> roles perhaps they could have the subdomains forward to their
> @gentoo.org address.  But then again that complicates things for the
> -infra team which I don't want to do.  That is why I've tried to keep
> quiet.  There is still quite a bit for me to learn.

Easier, and saner to just plain drop the subdomain notion.  Avoids the 
whole gentoo personel first class/second class issue first of all, 
second avoids infra aliasing annoyances.

Note also that retired.gentoo.org shouldn't really accomplish 
anything, unless the dev is able to send through the account (if they're 
retired, I would posit they shouldn't be able to).

> deltacow stated that in IRC...  and my response to that is: "that is
> what IRC cloaks are for".  Voice is used to mark AT's in #gentoo-amd64
> but the voice is used mostly for tor users in #gentoo.  I don't want to
> open a new can of worms by bringing in IRC but there really is no
> standardization throughout the channels and I think that is the way that
> most people want to keep it.  I'm not suggesting anything until I learn
> more.

Subject for another glep I'd think, although tbh not something I 
personally have much interest in- rules and conventions across 
channels vary fairly massively.  I wouldn't be too happy if the 
language requirement wound up forced on #gentoo-portage for example 
(nor do I suspect would the hardened crowd) :)

~harring

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Corey Shields]

On Saturday 19 November 2005 02:40 pm, Brian Harring wrote:
> Easier, and saner to just plain drop the subdomain notion.  Avoids the
> whole gentoo personel first class/second class issue first of all,
> second avoids infra aliasing annoyances.

I agree with this.

-- 
Corey Shields
Gentoo Linux Infrastructure Team
Gentoo Foundation Board of Trustees
http://www.gentoo.org/~cshields
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Stuart Herbert]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1141 bytes --]

On Sat, 2005-11-19 at 15:27 -0700, Tres Melton wrote:
> I think that there should be other sub-domains too but the current
> people should be left alone under a grandfather clause.  That would also
> help to see what people are working on what.
> 
> staff.gentoo.org 		forum staff
> amd64-at.gentoo.org		Arch testers for the amd64 platform
> contributer.gentoo.org		People that donate $$$ to Gentoo
> retired.gentoo.org		A thanks for helping earlier domain

Please, no!

Anyone else who has time to waste on proposals like this are welcome in
#gentoo-apache, where I can give you lots of things to do that will
actually make a difference to the quality of what we ship to users.

I can't see how this could ever be described as one of them.

Best regards,
Stu
-- 
Stuart Herbert                                         stuart@gentoo.org
Gentoo Developer                                  http://www.gentoo.org/
                                              http://stu.gnqs.org/diary/

GnuGP key id# F9AFC57C available from http://pgp.mit.edu
Key fingerprint = 31FB 50D4 1F88 E227 F319  C549 0C2F 80BA F9AF C57C
--

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Ben Skeggs]

On Sat, 2005-11-19 at 20:48 +0100, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> I've said it in the first meeting and I'll reiterate: what is the sentiment
> of the arch testers in this case (if they are still reading this thread)?
> 
I'm not sure that this topic is worthy of a flame-fest, but anyway..
still reading. :)

I don't believe @g.o (or @whatever.g.o) address is *necessary*, but it
would be of great help to know whether or not a bugzilla entry or
comment is from an AT.  It helps to know whether or not I should bother
doing "official" testing for a package, there's not much point if
another AT has already done thorough testing and my time would be
better spent putting another package through it's paces.

Whether or not the final address is @g.o or @at.g.o or whatever
shouldn't even be a huge issue.  If @at.g.o is too much work for the
admins (ie.  when an AT becomes a dev), then @g.o should just be used
instead.  Why is this such a big issue?

Anyway, the most important reason for the GLEP (IMO) is giving AT's r/o
access to CVS.  When working on bugs, it's always fun to find out that
the problem has already been resolved and just hasn't made it to your
local rsync mirror yet..

Just my $0.02.
Ben.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Marius Mauch]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 873 bytes --]

On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 09:32:55 +1100
Ben Skeggs <darktama@iinet.net.au> wrote:

> Anyway, the most important reason for the GLEP (IMO) is giving AT's
> r/o access to CVS.  When working on bugs, it's always fun to find out
> that the problem has already been resolved and just hasn't made it to
> your local rsync mirror yet..

Out of curiosity, what's the more important aspect of r/o cvs:
- more up to date
- easier selective updates
So far people always assumed the former though I could also see the
second being an issue which would be alot easier to resolve.

(it's always a good idea to know the actual problem before talking about
solutions ;)

Marius

-- 
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub

In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be
Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Lance Albertson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1127 bytes --]

Marius Mauch wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 09:32:55 +1100
> Ben Skeggs <darktama@iinet.net.au> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Anyway, the most important reason for the GLEP (IMO) is giving AT's
>>r/o access to CVS.  When working on bugs, it's always fun to find out
>>that the problem has already been resolved and just hasn't made it to
>>your local rsync mirror yet..
> 
> 
> Out of curiosity, what's the more important aspect of r/o cvs:
> - more up to date

Not necessarily true. We would not have the anon cvs access from our
primary cvs server. It would be synced on a regular basis to a separate
box. The newer cvs (which isn't on lark yet) may give us capabilities to
have a more 'live' cvs anon system. But as of now, the best infra can
provide is 30 minute updates. I don't want to poll the cvs more than
that to keep down the load.

> - easier selective updates

Yup, that's definitely a plus.

-- 
Lance Albertson <ramereth@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager

---
GPG Public Key:  <http://www.ramereth.net/lance.asc>
Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1  4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742

ramereth/irc.freenode.net

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] R/O CVS access and its purpose for ATs (was Email subdomain)

[Daniel Ostrow]

On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 17:56 -0600, Lance Albertson wrote:
> Marius Mauch wrote:
> > On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 09:32:55 +1100
> > Ben Skeggs <darktama@iinet.net.au> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>Anyway, the most important reason for the GLEP (IMO) is giving AT's
> >>r/o access to CVS.  When working on bugs, it's always fun to find out
> >>that the problem has already been resolved and just hasn't made it to
> >>your local rsync mirror yet..
> > 
> > 
> > Out of curiosity, what's the more important aspect of r/o cvs:
> > - more up to date
> 
> Not necessarily true. We would not have the anon cvs access from our
> primary cvs server. It would be synced on a regular basis to a separate
> box. The newer cvs (which isn't on lark yet) may give us capabilities to
> have a more 'live' cvs anon system. But as of now, the best infra can
> provide is 30 minute updates. I don't want to poll the cvs more than
> that to keep down the load.
> 
> > - easier selective updates
> 
> Yup, that's definitely a plus.
> 

And herein I think lies some confusion. Personally if I were an AT both
would be important but more to the point the "more up to date" issue
would be the most important. I think that there is a need for the ATs to
be able to work in direct conjunction with a dev, an AT catches an
error, a dev fixes it in CVS using a *well tested* patch, an AT does a
`cvs up` and retests to try and catch *other* errors all within a matter
of *single digit* minutes. This is a very powerful tool, rather then
what they have to do now which is either wait for it to hit the rsync
mirrors, a dedicated rsync mirror, a dedicated anoncvs box, or e-mail
the ebuilds (and patches) back and forth. Note the two highly stressed
things up there...this should not be used so ATs can vet patches (wither
to ebuilds or to source), the patches should be well tested long before
they reach our tree...

Lance:

I know this is a far cry from what you are proposing, and I understand
that the present CVS server cannot handle this sort of load but I
believe that this was the original intention at least...someone correct
me if I am wrong.

I think that this issue has to be nailed down *before* we get any
further in discussion.

-- 
Daniel Ostrow
Gentoo Foundation Board of Trustees
Gentoo/{PPC,PPC64,DevRel}
dostrow@gentoo.org

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] R/O CVS access and its purpose for ATs (was Email subdomain)

[Kurt Lieber]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1520 bytes --]

On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 10:38:39AM -0500 or thereabouts, Daniel Ostrow wrote:
> And herein I think lies some confusion. Personally if I were an AT both
> would be important but more to the point the "more up to date" issue
> would be the most important. 

I agree -- this was the main point of the original GLEP.

> an AT does a
> `cvs up` and retests to try and catch *other* errors all within a matter
> of *single digit* minutes. 

I do question the need for "single digit" minutes.  30 minutes may be too
much, but I think we could probably live with something in the 10-15 minute
range.  (if folks disagree, please speak up)

> I know this is a far cry from what you are proposing, and I understand
> that the present CVS server cannot handle this sort of load but I
> believe that this was the original intention at least...someone correct
> me if I am wrong.

Anything is possible -- it's merely a matter of how much money we want to
spend in the process.  So far, nobody has really come back and said that
using CVS, specifically, is a requirement.  So, at this point, all options
are on the table, but the main goal is to provide something that is as
close to real-time as possible and allows authorized individuals to
synchronize far more often than the current public rsync mirrors.  All this
is for a targeted group of up to ~100 users.

Can we agree on these requirements?  Are there others that I've left out?
If not, we can start working on an implementation plan.

--kurt

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] R/O CVS access and its purpose for ATs (was Email subdomain)

[Lance Albertson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1562 bytes --]

Daniel Ostrow wrote:

> Lance:
> 
> I know this is a far cry from what you are proposing, and I understand
> that the present CVS server cannot handle this sort of load but I
> believe that this was the original intention at least...someone correct
> me if I am wrong.

One of the issues we had with direct cvs access is managing all of the
AT accounts. If we're talking 50-100 ATs, that increases our user
account management load by a lot considering we only have 300 developers
right now. The other reason is of course with load on lark itself. We
can only do so many concurrent cvs up's of the full tree and adding this
many users concerns me alot with that aspect.

As what kurt said in a followup to this email, If we can nail down that
the primary need of the GLEP is quick access to changes, that will help
us a lot in figuring out the logistics of the issue.

I know pylon had talked about the newer cvs allowing for a virtually
'live' update to another cvs box via a commit hook, but he's been rather
busy lately and hasn't had a chance to work on that. I think that has
the best hope down the road of resolving this GLEP. I would just like to
keep the management of lark to the minimum if at all possible, so for
now I would prefer a restricted rsync module or cvs box that gets
updated every X minutes.

Cheers-

-- 
Lance Albertson <ramereth@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager

---
GPG Public Key:  <http://www.ramereth.net/lance.asc>
Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1  4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742

ramereth/irc.freenode.net

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 186 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] R/O CVS access and its purpose for ATs (was Email subdomain)

[George Prowse]

On 23/11/05, Lance Albertson <ramereth@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Daniel Ostrow wrote:
>
> > Lance:
> >
> > I know this is a far cry from what you are proposing, and I understand
> > that the present CVS server cannot handle this sort of load but I
> > believe that this was the original intention at least...someone correct
> > me if I am wrong.
>
> One of the issues we had with direct cvs access is managing all of the
> AT accounts. If we're talking 50-100 ATs, that increases our user
> account management load by a lot considering we only have 300 developers
> right now. The other reason is of course with load on lark itself. We
> can only do so many concurrent cvs up's of the full tree and adding this
> many users concerns me alot with that aspect.
>
> As what kurt said in a followup to this email, If we can nail down that
> the primary need of the GLEP is quick access to changes, that will help
> us a lot in figuring out the logistics of the issue.
>
> I know pylon had talked about the newer cvs allowing for a virtually
> 'live' update to another cvs box via a commit hook, but he's been rather
> busy lately and hasn't had a chance to work on that. I think that has
> the best hope down the road of resolving this GLEP. I would just like to
> keep the management of lark to the minimum if at all possible, so for
> now I would prefer a restricted rsync module or cvs box that gets
> updated every X minutes.
>
> Cheers-
>
> --
> Lance Albertson <ramereth@gentoo.org>
> Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager
>
> ---
> GPG Public Key:  <http://www.ramereth.net/lance.asc>
> Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1  4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742
>
> ramereth/irc.freenode.net
>
>
What about finding out how many ATs are going to be using it at the
start and limiting the amount of ATs with access to <40-50 until
either a new way for access has been decided on or new equipment has
been brought it. Currently I wouldn't need it because I am without
amd64 equipment until after equipment.

George

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] R/O CVS access and its purpose for ATs (was Email subdomain)

[Lance Albertson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 781 bytes --]

George Prowse wrote:

> What about finding out how many ATs are going to be using it at the
> start and limiting the amount of ATs with access to <40-50 until
> either a new way for access has been decided on or new equipment has
> been brought it. Currently I wouldn't need it because I am without
> amd64 equipment until after equipment.

I would rather resolve the issue now rather than integrate 50 or more
people into our cvs system and 'fix' it later. Lets just be patient and
we'll sort out the technical details soon enough.

Cheers-

-- 
Lance Albertson <ramereth@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager

---
GPG Public Key:  <http://www.ramereth.net/lance.asc>
Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1  4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742

ramereth/irc.freenode.net

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 186 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Wernfried Haas]

On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 11:09:07AM -0600, Homer Parker wrote:
> 	Now that GLEP 41 (AT/HT) has passed, we need to designate a subdomain
> for their email. This will cover AT/HT's as well as forum help, so needs
> to be generic. So to start with let me throw a couple out:

Just for the record and to hopefully not revive that whole discussion
about different types of developers/staff again: Forums
moderators/admins have @gentoo.org email addresses and aren't really
affected by that subdomain. Also the term staff is already taken by
forums staff and infra/devrel staff (if there are folks that aren't
full developers among them), so adding staff.gentoo.org for the AT and
similar ones may be even more confusing.
Imo ht.gentoo.org would sound quite useful, but may be not generic
enough (was a mentioned as requirement somewhere
iirc). @assist.gentoo.org sounds ok, personally i think aide@g.o
sounds nice.

cheers,
	Wernfried

-- 
Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne at gentoo dot org
Gentoo Forums: http://forums.gentoo.org
IRC: #gentoo-forums on freenode - email: forum-mods at gentoo dot org
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[George Prowse]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2291 bytes --]

Actually "staff" gives the ideal ambiguity that is needed for these
placements. The need to seperate developers from staff who have seperate
jobs to do is an acute one.

At the moment the @gentoo.org <http://gentoo.org> address is seen as a
developer one but as you mentioned the word "staff" is already used to
describe forums staff and devrel, some of which dont develop for Gentoo. A
solution for that could be to give all developers a
@dev.gentoo.org<http://dev.gentoo.org>address but seeing as developers
are by far the biggest group with that
address it would be silly to. A better way to have it is to call
non-developers "staff" and give them a @staff.g.o address.

This addressing would also be useful for the future when people are used by
Gentoo in other areas like specifically for management, PR or even sales;
basically any volunteer who adds to Gentoo in a non-developmental role.

George

On 11/18/05, Wernfried Haas <amne@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 11:09:07AM -0600, Homer Parker wrote:
> > Now that GLEP 41 (AT/HT) has passed, we need to designate a subdomain
> > for their email. This will cover AT/HT's as well as forum help, so needs
> > to be generic. So to start with let me throw a couple out:
>
> Just for the record and to hopefully not revive that whole discussion
> about different types of developers/staff again: Forums
> moderators/admins have @gentoo.org <http://gentoo.org> email addresses and
> aren't really
> affected by that subdomain. Also the term staff is already taken by
> forums staff and infra/devrel staff (if there are folks that aren't
> full developers among them), so adding staff.gentoo.org<http://staff.gentoo.org>for the AT and
> similar ones may be even more confusing.
> Imo ht.gentoo.org <http://ht.gentoo.org> would sound quite useful, but may
> be not generic
> enough (was a mentioned as requirement somewhere
> iirc). @assist.gentoo.org <http://assist.gentoo.org> sounds ok, personally
> i think aide@g.o
> sounds nice.
>
> cheers,
> Wernfried
>
> --
> Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne at gentoo dot org
> Gentoo Forums: http://forums.gentoo.org
> IRC: #gentoo-forums on freenode - email: forum-mods at gentoo dot org
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2899 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Max]

Hi.

On 11/18/05, Homer Parker <hparker@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>         Thoughts, better ideas appreciated.
>
Well, they are called testers, so why not @testers.g.o?

Max

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Olivier Crete]

On Fri, 2005-18-11 at 22:06 +0100, Max wrote:
> Hi.
> 
> On 11/18/05, Homer Parker <hparker@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> >         Thoughts, better ideas appreciated.
> >
> Well, they are called testers, so why not @testers.g.o?

I like @testers.g.o .. it feels like an army of mini-me ! 
Can I get tester@testers.g.o  ? ;) 

-- 
Olivier Crête
tester@gentoo.org
Gentoo Developer


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Mike Frysinger]

On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 10:06:02PM +0100, Max wrote:
> On 11/18/05, Homer Parker <hparker@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> >         Thoughts, better ideas appreciated.
>
> Well, they are called testers, so why not @testers.g.o?

because the idea was to put all future 'staff' there, not just AT's
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Lares Moreau]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1571 bytes --]

Is there a possibility to have each 'type' of staff have there own
subdomain. ie.  @testers.g.o for at/ht
		@docs.g.o for document persons
		@infra.g.o for infrastucture
		etc...
		@staff.g.o for non-specific staff
		@g.o for devs

Further, have an alias from @g.o to @<subdomain>.g.o, with an email
returned to the sender if the subdomain is incorrect.

eg.
To: foo@gentoo.org
From: bar@nowhere.com
<body>

Now if Foo is an AT, then the email alias would forward to
foo@testers.g.o which would solve that problem. Also an email could be
sent on behalf of foo@testers.g.o to bar@nowhere.com informing that
person of a missed typed address and to have all further email sent to
@testers.g.o .

This may be just convoluted, but food for thought.

On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 11:09 -0600, Homer Parker wrote:
> 	Now that GLEP 41 (AT/HT) has passed, we need to designate a subdomain
> for their email. This will cover AT/HT's as well as forum help, so needs
> to be generic. So to start with let me throw a couple out:
> 
> @staff.g.o
> @assist.g.o
> 
> 	Thoughts, better ideas appreciated. 
> 
> -- 
> Homer Parker
> Gentoo/AMD64 Team
> Gentoo/AMD64 Arch Tester Strategic Lead
> Gentoo Linux Developer Relations
> hparker@gentoo.org
> 
-- 
Lares Moreau <lares.moreau@gmail.com>  | LRU: 400755 http://counter.li.org
Gentoo x86 Arch Tester                 |               ::0 Alberta, Canada
Public Key: 0D46BB6E @ subkeys.pgp.net |           Encrypted Mail Prefered
Key fingerprint = 0CA3 E40D F897 7709 3628  C5D4 7D94 483E 0D46 BB6E

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 616 bytes --]

On Saturday 19 November 2005 17:16, Lares Moreau wrote:
> Is there a possibility to have each 'type' of staff have there own
> subdomain. ie.  @testers.g.o for at/ht
> 		@docs.g.o for document persons
> 		@infra.g.o for infrastucture
> 		etc...
> 		@staff.g.o for non-specific staff
> 		@g.o for devs

As I just mentioned earlier in this thread I see no reason to change every 
email addy when the GLEP seems to only specify changes for arch tester. 

This seems like a topic for a new GLEP that will probably raise a bit of 
discussion:-)

-- 
Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen
Gentoo Linux Security Team

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Brian Harring]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1727 bytes --]

On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 09:16:06AM -0700, Lares Moreau wrote:
> Is there a possibility to have each 'type' of staff have there own
> subdomain. ie.  @testers.g.o for at/ht
> 		@docs.g.o for document persons
> 		@infra.g.o for infrastucture
> 		etc...
> 		@staff.g.o for non-specific staff
> 		@g.o for devs
No (and hopefully this email finally kills this line of thought off :)

fex, for me
ferringb@g.o
ferringb@portage.g.o
ferringb@infra.g.o (portage infra crap plus distfiles)
ferringb@(recruiters|devrel).g.o (recruiters)

for solar
solar@g.o
solar@infra.g.o
solar@council.g.o
solar@docs.g.o
solar@hardened.g.o
solar@x86.g.o

Etc.  I'm naming subdomains off the top of my head to match 
high level grouping, but it should be clear this isn't a tenuable 
path to take both for devs, and for harassing infra with alias requests.

> Further, have an alias from @g.o to @<subdomain>.g.o, with an email
> returned to the sender if the subdomain is incorrect.

Aliasing sucks due to the need to remove the alias after a role 
changes- if I stop doing recruiting, that alias now needs to be 
disabled.  Either you bounce the email, or you leave the alias in 
place- either solution sucks if you're trying to do subdomains and 
have them actually mean something.

This also is not even remotely getting into the question of 
segregating gentoo peeps, something I dislike.

It's just not a good way to manage things with people changing roles, 
nor does the subdomain addition really mean anything imo- if I had all 
of those aliases, I'd still send from ferringb@g.o.  Can't tell what 
the hell I do based upon the from, still would have to resort to doing 
some digging...

~harring

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Lares Moreau]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2214 bytes --]

On Sat, 2005-11-19 at 10:38 -0600, Brian Harring wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 09:16:06AM -0700, Lares Moreau wrote:
> > Is there a possibility to have each 'type' of staff have there own
> > subdomain. ie.  @testers.g.o for at/ht
> > 		@docs.g.o for document persons
> > 		@infra.g.o for infrastucture
> > 		etc...
> > 		@staff.g.o for non-specific staff
> > 		@g.o for devs
> No (and hopefully this email finally kills this line of thought off :)
> 

Dead in my line of thinking

> fex, for me
> ferringb@g.o
> ferringb@portage.g.o
> ferringb@infra.g.o (portage infra crap plus distfiles)
> ferringb@(recruiters|devrel).g.o (recruiters)
> 
> for solar
> solar@g.o
> solar@infra.g.o
> solar@council.g.o
> solar@docs.g.o
> solar@hardened.g.o
> solar@x86.g.o
> 
> Etc.  I'm naming subdomains off the top of my head to match 
> high level grouping, but it should be clear this isn't a tenuable 
> path to take both for devs, and for harassing infra with alias requests.
> 
> > Further, have an alias from @g.o to @<subdomain>.g.o, with an email
> > returned to the sender if the subdomain is incorrect.
> 
> Aliasing sucks due to the need to remove the alias after a role 
> changes- if I stop doing recruiting, that alias now needs to be 
> disabled.  Either you bounce the email, or you leave the alias in 
> place- either solution sucks if you're trying to do subdomains and 
> have them actually mean something.
> 
> This also is not even remotely getting into the question of 
> segregating gentoo peeps, something I dislike.
> 
> It's just not a good way to manage things with people changing roles, 
> nor does the subdomain addition really mean anything imo- if I had all 
> of those aliases, I'd still send from ferringb@g.o.  Can't tell what 
> the hell I do based upon the from, still would have to resort to doing 
> some digging...
> 
> ~harring
-- 
Lares Moreau <lares.moreau@gmail.com>  | LRU: 400755 http://counter.li.org
Gentoo x86 Arch Tester                 |               ::0 Alberta, Canada
Public Key: 0D46BB6E @ subkeys.pgp.net |           Encrypted Mail Prefered
Key fingerprint = 0CA3 E40D F897 7709 3628  C5D4 7D94 483E 0D46 BB6E

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 567 bytes --]

On Friday 18 November 2005 18:09, Homer Parker wrote:
> 	Now that GLEP 41 (AT/HT) has passed, we need to designate a subdomain
> for their email. This will cover AT/HT's as well as forum help, so needs
> to be generic. So to start with let me throw a couple out:
>
> @staff.g.o
> @assist.g.o
>
> 	Thoughts, better ideas appreciated.


Why not just @at.gentoo.org
Makes clear what it is. Arch testers are not staff. Not that we have any 
staff.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Marius Mauch]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1132 bytes --]

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 11:19:17 +0100
Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Friday 18 November 2005 18:09, Homer Parker wrote:
> > 	Now that GLEP 41 (AT/HT) has passed, we need to designate a
> > subdomain for their email. This will cover AT/HT's as well as forum
> > help, so needs to be generic. So to start with let me throw a
> > couple out:
> >
> > @staff.g.o
> > @assist.g.o
> >
> > 	Thoughts, better ideas appreciated.
> 
> 
> Why not just @at.gentoo.org
> Makes clear what it is. Arch testers are not staff. Not that we have
> any staff.

Can't we just let the whole subdomain stuff die and be done with it? If
not, I'd like to propose we make a vote amongst all current devs with
the options:
- give ATs a @g.o email
- give them a subdomain
- give them no mail
- don't care
Just to get some numbers how many people actually want this subdomain
crap. I don't think there are many.

Marius

-- 
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub

In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be
Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Possible solution: email subdomain

[Duncan]

Marius Mauch posted <20051123002605.174c3fc8@sven.genone.homeip.net>,
excerpted below,  on Wed, 23 Nov 2005 00:26:05 +0100:

> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 11:19:17 +0100
> Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
>> Why not just @at.gentoo.org
>> Makes clear what it is. Arch testers are not staff. Not that we have any
>> staff.
> 
> Can't we just let the whole subdomain stuff die and be done with it? If
> not, I'd like to propose we make a vote amongst all current devs with the
> options:
> - give ATs a @g.o email
> - give them a subdomain
> - give them no mail
> - don't care
> Just to get some numbers how many people actually want this subdomain
> crap. I don't think there are many.

There's an idea Jeroen Roovers posted (message
<20051120020737.1dc2ee42@epia.jer.lan> ) that would, AFAIK, solve the
problem for infra, while still giving AT/HTs a distinctive address.
Unfortunately, noone seemed to pickup on it besides me.  (No other
comments to the subthread, thus I'm changing the title this time around,
hoping to get a bit better response.)

Here's the proposal again.  If there's an issue with it, shoot it down,
but from here, it certainly seems to fit the bill.  Again, I'd /love/ to
say I was the one that came up with it, but I wasn't. =8^)

* give [AH]Ts a <name>.tester@gentoo.org address.

- It's not a subdomain, so the existing infrastructure should have no
problems with it.

- testername.tester@gentoo.org remains distinctive enough it should
alleviate any doubts or confusion over status.

- the biggest possible objection I can see is that the root,
tester@gentoo.org, is already in use.  Thus, in particular, I'd like to
see his reaction to this proposal.  We could, of course, take the same
idea and change the root, if necessary.  My previous suggestion, intern,
would work, or assistant, or something else.  Tester is of course short
and concise, but intern or assistant would be more generic, allowing the
possiblity of other non-tester additions, in the future, with the same
root.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman in
http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Possible solution: email subdomain

[Marius Mauch]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1476 bytes --]

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 03:39:08 -0700
Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> wrote:

> Here's the proposal again.  If there's an issue with it, shoot it
> down, but from here, it certainly seems to fit the bill.  Again,
> I'd /love/ to say I was the one that came up with it, but I wasn't.
> =8^)
> 
> * give [AH]Ts a <name>.tester@gentoo.org address.
> 
> - It's not a subdomain, so the existing infrastructure should have no
> problems with it.
> 
> - testername.tester@gentoo.org remains distinctive enough it should
> alleviate any doubts or confusion over status.
> 
> - the biggest possible objection I can see is that the root,
> tester@gentoo.org, is already in use.  Thus, in particular, I'd like
> to see his reaction to this proposal.  We could, of course, take the
> same idea and change the root, if necessary.  My previous suggestion,
> intern, would work, or assistant, or something else.  Tester is of
> course short and concise, but intern or assistant would be more
> generic, allowing the possiblity of other non-tester additions, in
> the future, with the same root.

Has the same problem as a subdomain as it creates two "classes" of
devs. So it would solve the potential technical problems, but we still
have the semantic issues.

Marius

-- 
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub

In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be
Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Possible solution: email subdomain

[Duncan]

Marius Mauch posted <20051123154049.6b5af84c@sven.genone.homeip.net>,
excerpted below,  on Wed, 23 Nov 2005 15:40:49 +0100:

> On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 03:39:08 -0700
> Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> wrote:
> 
>> Here's the proposal again.  If there's an issue with it, shoot it down,
>> but from here, it certainly seems to fit the bill.  Again, I'd /love/ to
>> say I was the one that came up with it, but I wasn't.
>> =8^)
>> 
>> * give [AH]Ts a <name>.tester@gentoo.org address.
>> 
>> - It's not a subdomain, so the existing infrastructure should have no
>> problems with it.
>> 
>> - testername.tester@gentoo.org remains distinctive enough it should
>> alleviate any doubts or confusion over status.
>> 
> Has the same problem as a subdomain as it creates two "classes" of devs.
> So it would solve the potential technical problems, but we still have the
> semantic issues.

Viewpoint seen, and thanks for posting it.  However, the proposed solution
still appears from here to fit the bill, because...

- The folks to whom it will apply are /not/ full devs, as they haven't
gone thru the dev process, so it's not creating two classes of devs, but
rather creating a distinction between devs and this not-dev class.

- Lack of said distinction appears to have been one of the specific items
on the list the first time thru thru.  The council said it had to be
added, so it was.  The council then approved the change with the addition
made at their instruction.

Sure, we could go back and argue the wisdom of the original point made by
the council, but to this point, I haven't seen that seriously debated, nor
do I believe it should be, because either we accept that the council has
the authority to make those sorts of decisions or we don't, and if we
don't, what do we have a council for?

It would seem to me that there are two opposing viewpoints, one taking the
position that ATs should be practically treated as devs, no distinction,
the other taking the position that they are just users and the whole AT
position shouldn't exist.  The council position seems to be a generally
reasonable compromise, that they are a class of user that should be
recognized as making a contribution and having responsibilities beyond
that of an ordinary user, but that they should remain distinct from full
devs, because they are NOT full devs.  Part of that position is that they
get a gentoo mail address, but one recongizably distinct from that of a
gentoo dev.

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.

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.

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.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman in
http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Possible solution: email subdomain

[Dan Meltzer]

On 11/23/05, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> wrote:
> Marius Mauch posted <20051123154049.6b5af84c@sven.genone.homeip.net>,
> excerpted below,  on Wed, 23 Nov 2005 15:40:49 +0100:
>
> > On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 03:39:08 -0700
> > Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Here's the proposal again.  If there's an issue with it, shoot it down,
> >> but from here, it certainly seems to fit the bill.  Again, I'd /love/ to
> >> say I was the one that came up with it, but I wasn't.
> >> =8^)
> >>
> >> * give [AH]Ts a <name>.tester@gentoo.org address.
> >>
> >> - It's not a subdomain, so the existing infrastructure should have no
> >> problems with it.
> >>
> >> - testername.tester@gentoo.org remains distinctive enough it should
> >> alleviate any doubts or confusion over status.
> >>
> > Has the same problem as a subdomain as it creates two "classes" of devs.
> > So it would solve the potential technical problems, but we still have the
> > semantic issues.
>
> Viewpoint seen, and thanks for posting it.  However, the proposed solution
> still appears from here to fit the bill, because...
>
> - The folks to whom it will apply are /not/ full devs, as they haven't
> gone thru the dev process, so it's not creating two classes of devs, but
> rather creating a distinction between devs and this not-dev class.

Can we get all current developers renamed to nick.developer then? just
to alleiviate any confusion someone may have...

[snip a buttload or two]

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re[2]: [gentoo-dev] Re: Possible solution: email subdomain

[Jakub Moc]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 404 bytes --]


23.11.2005, 20:07:15, Dan Meltzer wrote:


> Can we get all current developers renamed to nick.developer then? just
> to alleiviate any confusion someone may have...

> [snip a buttload or two]

NO (I sincerely hope at least), and please let's finally stop messing w/ email
addresses causing further confusion and administrative overhead for no good
reason. :=(

*sigh*


-- 

jakub

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 183 bytes --]

Re: Re[2]: [gentoo-dev] Re: Possible solution: email subdomain

[Dan Meltzer]

forgot my sarcasm tags :)

Get the idea though?

On 11/23/05, Jakub Moc <jakub@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> 23.11.2005, 20:07:15, Dan Meltzer wrote:
>
>
> > Can we get all current developers renamed to nick.developer then? just
> > to alleiviate any confusion someone may have...
>
> > [snip a buttload or two]
>
> NO (I sincerely hope at least), and please let's finally stop messing w/ email
> addresses causing further confusion and administrative overhead for no good
> reason. :=(
>
> *sigh*
>
>
> --
>
> jakub
>
>
>

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Possible solution: email subdomain

[Kurt Lieber]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1649 bytes --]

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

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Possible solution: email subdomain

[Duncan]

Kurt Lieber posted <20051123222835.GI12982@mail.lieber.org>, excerpted
below,  on Wed, 23 Nov 2005 22:28:35 +0000:

> This solution has the same yellow star stigma that the original proposal
> does.
 
Agreed, altho it seems that's the way the council wanted it...
 
> 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.

Then I missunderstood.  The infra objections I'D read appeared (to me) to
be to the subdomain, as it wasn't an issue with the original GLEP.
However, I now see the original GLEP's proposal of addresses vs. the new
GLEP's proposal of aliases is a valid rendering of the objections as well,
and indeed, as you so patiently explain, this doesn't affect that aspect.
Being infra, that pretty absolutely quashes my previous understanding, and
with it, the proposed solution.

Thanks for making it clear to me.  Shot down, indeed, but that's exactly
what I asked for!  =8^)  Too bad it wasn't that simple!

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman in
http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list