On 11/23/05, Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Marius Mauch posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > excerpted below, on Wed, 23 Nov 2005 15:40:49 +0100: > > > On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 03:39:08 -0700 > > Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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>[EMAIL PROTECTED] address. > >> > >> - It's not a subdomain, so the existing infrastructure should have no > >> problems with it. > >> > >> - [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
