Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

[Lance Albertson <ramereth@gentoo.org>]

[-- 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 --]