Mailing List Archive

Request for changes to GLEP 41
OK, enough has been said about the current problems that some people
have with GLEP 41. I'm not going to belabor that. Instead, I'm going to
ask for one of three changes. What I object to most strongly is the notion
that we're classifying devs based on their relative worth to the project
and assigning them email addresses accordingly. Some folks will remember
far back enough to when we had developers, senior developers, etc. and the
problems that that caused. I don't want to see the same thing happen here.

So, could we please make one of the following three changes to GLEP 41:

* Drop the idea of giving the arch testers an email alias altogether

I don't see what benefit this provides, to be honest. It's not much of a
spiff and if someone is signing up to help with testing just for the
email address, they're not here for the right reasons anyway.

* Change @subdomain.gentoo.org to @gentoo.org.

If we want to give them a spiff in recognition of their contribution to
the project, give them the real thing. We do this today for any number
of other non-developer groups, including GWN translators, documentation
translators, etc.

* Create an entirely new domain

This is my least favorite option, but one that I offer as a way to try
and compromise on all of this. I still think this segregates people, but
in a much less discriminatory fashion. Additionally, with a new domain,
we could open it up to a much broader audience. (offering email
addresses to folks who donate in other ways -- financially, hardware,
bandwidth, etc.) This may seem largely like a matter of semantics and I
guess it is. However, this whole disagreement is largely about
perception anyway and a separate domain just seems less disagreeable to
me.

--kurt
Re: Request for changes to GLEP 41 [ In reply to ]
Kurt Lieber wrote:
> * Drop the idea of giving the arch testers an email alias altogether
> I don't see what benefit this provides, to be honest. It's not much of a
> spiff and if someone is signing up to help with testing just for the
> email address, they're not here for the right reasons anyway.

I agree that if somebody signs up for an email address, he's in the wrong place.
This issue is not new, it's the same with beeing a dev. Becoming an AT isn't
easier than becoming dev: You've got a probation period of 30 days, you've got
to do the staff and ebuild quizzes. On a side note, I don't think anybody
considers the worth of a @g.o address so high that he would sign up only to gain
the email address.

On the other side, giving the ATs a @g.o address does make sense. It might be
easier for other arches, but at least the amd64 team has quite a lot of them,
and it's really difficult to keep all the cryptic email addresses in mind. I
have to check our AT-List about 3 times a week to see whether a bug was filed by
an AT which I can trust and which I know of what his system looks like, or if it
is just average Joe. So to me, an email alias would make things easier, with or
without subdomain

> * Change @subdomain.gentoo.org to @gentoo.org.
>
> If we want to give them a spiff in recognition of their contribution to
> the project, give them the real thing. We do this today for any number
> of other non-developer groups, including GWN translators, documentation
> translators, etc.

The original GLEP didn't foresee a subdomain, we actually wanted to give them a
@g.o address, but it seemed that a lot of devs thought ATs were just a random
bunch of incompetent users and as a consequence this, don't deserve a 'real'
@g.o address. It made me quite sad, and I'm happy to see that I'm not the only
one who thinks it would be better to not cut gentoo into different groups.
However, the council asked for it, and so it was changed. And the council didn't
ask for this on his own, they were just reflecting the majority of devs, so
we'll have to accept that.

> * Create an entirely new domain

I don't really like this, and it seems at least equally complicated as
subdomains. If that's really the way we (as in Gentoo) want to go, I'll happily
continue to look up the AT page 3 times a week. It's really not a THAT big
issue. I just thought it would be nice to give the ATs a @g.o address, but it's
really not essentially for me to work.

Regards,

--
Simon Stelling
Gentoo/AMD64 Operational Co-Lead
blubb@gentoo.org
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: Request for changes to GLEP 41 [ In reply to ]
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 07:07:01PM +0100 or thereabouts, Simon Stelling
wrote:
> However, the council asked for it, and so it was changed. And the council
> didn't ask for this on his own, they were just reflecting the majority of
> devs, so we'll have to accept that.

If there's one thing I've learned in my tenure with this project is that
there is no such thing as a majority of devs. We never have the majority
agree on *anything*. So, I don't think that statement is accurate.

Not trying to be pedantic, but the notion that the majority of Gentoo
support(s|ed) GLEP 41 is one that I believe to be incorrect.

--kurt
Re: Request for changes to GLEP 41 [ In reply to ]
Kurt Lieber wrote:
>>However, the council asked for it, and so it was changed. And the council
>>didn't ask for this on his own, they were just reflecting the majority of
>>devs, so we'll have to accept that.
>
>
> If there's one thing I've learned in my tenure with this project is that
> there is no such thing as a majority of devs. We never have the majority
> agree on *anything*. So, I don't think that statement is accurate.

Heh, that's a valid point.

> Not trying to be pedantic, but the notion that the majority of Gentoo
> support(s|ed) GLEP 41 is one that I believe to be incorrect.

I've never said (that I think that) the majority supports GLEP 41. In fact, i
think the vast majority bluntly doesn't care about it at all, as they aren't
affected by it anyway. However, of those who gave feedback on the first draft, a
majority said "we need a subdomain". Those who thought that a subdomain would be
a bad idea didn't step up at that moment (including me), at least if I recall right.

--
Simon Stelling
Gentoo/AMD64 Operational Co-Lead
blubb@gentoo.org
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: Request for changes to GLEP 41 [ In reply to ]
Simon Stelling wrote:

> I've never said (that I think that) the majority supports GLEP 41. In
> fact, i think the vast majority bluntly doesn't care about it at all, as
> they aren't affected by it anyway. However, of those who gave feedback
> on the first draft, a majority said "we need a subdomain". Those who
> thought that a subdomain would be a bad idea didn't step up at that
> moment (including me), at least if I recall right.

You can't expect me to follow every single email/thread that comes up on
-dev. I tried my best to follow this thread, and decided I would wait on
the revised glep to see what was finally decided on to try. Since I
never saw the revised glep until the day before the council vote, it
made it very hard for me to voice my opinion on the subdomain idea.

--
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
Re: Request for changes to GLEP 41 [ In reply to ]
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 16:26:20 +0000
Kurt Lieber <klieber@gentoo.org> wrote:

> * Drop the idea of giving the arch testers an email alias altogether
>

> * Change @subdomain.gentoo.org to @gentoo.org.
>

> * Create an entirely new domain
>

And fourthly:

* Give those arch testers a temporary foo.tester@gentoo.org and don't
mess with subdomains.


JeR
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: Request for changes to GLEP 41 [ In reply to ]
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 04:26:20PM +0000, Kurt Lieber wrote:
> * Drop the idea of giving the arch testers an email alias altogether

works for me but i think makes the GLEP less meaningful

> * Change @subdomain.gentoo.org to @gentoo.org.

i'd be against this and i'm pretty sure others would be to (just see
the first log for GLEP 41)

> * Create an entirely new domain

isnt <subdomain>.gentoo.org a new domain ? i dont see how this is any
different (assuming you mean a new 2nd level domain in the .org tld)
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re[2]: Request for changes to GLEP 41 [ In reply to ]
20.11.2005, 12:10:35, Mike Frysinger wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 04:26:20PM +0000, Kurt Lieber wrote:
>> * Drop the idea of giving the arch testers an email alias altogether

> works for me but i think makes the GLEP less meaningful

Unless we are able to move to some important things instead of flexing muscles
and ego in endless debates on importance of subdomains creating pointless
administrative overhead, someone *please* with sugar on top drop that idea from
the GLEP.

This debate starts to be pretty much ridiculous.


--
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 ;)
Re: Request for changes to GLEP 41 [ In reply to ]
Jeroen Roovers posted <20051120020737.1dc2ee42@epia.jer.lan>, excerpted
below, on Sun, 20 Nov 2005 02:07:37 +0100:

> * Give those arch testers a temporary foo.tester@gentoo.org and don't
> mess with subdomains.

That's a very interesting idea. Could it really be as simple as that?
It should certainly eliminate any infra concerns with the subdomain, since
it eliminates the subdomain, yet it fills all the other requirements as I
can see them, anyway, and is consistent with the "suggestion" language of
the GLEP as passed.

Why didn't *I* think of that!?? =8^)

--
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