[gentoo-dev] Re: Possible solution: email subdomain

[Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net>]

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