From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1EdWua-0000CC-A0 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 19 Nov 2005 17:54:04 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id jAJHqIIx008529; Sat, 19 Nov 2005 17:52:18 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id jAJHnKbW010500 for ; Sat, 19 Nov 2005 17:49:21 GMT Received: from car75-2-82-66-60-148.fbx.proxad.net ([82.66.60.148]) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.43) id 1EdWq0-0005Je-3E for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Sat, 19 Nov 2005 17:49:20 +0000 Message-ID: <437F659E.9070008@gentoo.org> Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 18:49:18 +0100 From: Thierry Carrez Organization: Gentoo Linux User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (X11/20050727) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain References: <1132333748.8524.9.camel@localhost> <200511182022.00662.cshields@gentoo.org> <437EAABE.5050502@gentoo.org> <200511182042.30961.cshields@gentoo.org> <20051119152050.GH12958@dst.grantgoodyear.org> <437F56ED.9020904@gentoo.org> <437F5FFC.1000602@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <437F5FFC.1000602@gentoo.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.92.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: ab623d0e-4719-4253-8b97-506f0986d539 X-Archives-Hash: 88458e25b1375982c36bc92ada303d28 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