On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 01:51:15PM -0600 or thereabouts, Brian Harring wrote: > I'll again point out that the glep doesn't actually mandate it, states > it's the lowest common denominator that's acceptable.
And I'll point out that there's more than one issue that we're concerned with here. > Stop pointing at one interpretation of it that sucks, when the glep > _does_ leave it open to you how to implement it. It's a waste of > people's time and bandwidth, and is a bit disenguous. I'm trying to find a solution to the issues as I see them. Telling me I'm wasting people's time and bandwidth doesn't seem conducive to working together towards a resolution to this all. If you're going to say, "it was passed, you guys just have to find a way to implement it. now please stop bothering us" then I'm going to come up with an implementation plan that looks something like the following: * all SSH keys and email addresses for arch testers will auto-expire after 60 days. If an arch tester needs to have continued access, a gentoo dev will have to re-submit the key and recreate the alias for that arch tester every 60 days. That meets the requirements of the GLEP down to the letter and also satisfies infra concerns around key management. However, it's a crappy solution. So, I'd much rather work together towards finding a better one. --kurt
pgpYvKSHh19ky.pgp
Description: PGP signature
