On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 11:47:18AM -0700 or thereabouts, Duncan wrote: > 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.
The "possible solution" offers no technical or administrative advantages over creating a sub-domain in the first place. The two solutions are essentially equal. > 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. This solution has the same yellow star stigma that the original proposal does. > 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. The only outstanding administrative issue is how these aliases are managed. The same management issues exist regardless of whether we're talking about [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] --kurt
pgpW0taJTsglg.pgp
Description: PGP signature
