-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Kurt von Finck wrote: > On Fri, 2006-02-24 at 09:26 -0800, C.J. Adams-Collier wrote: > >> Please let's continue this discussion and public debate. I do >> not believe that the policy has been defended properly. I will >> continue to petition this list to consider alteration until the >> reason for the policy has been made clear. > > Continue to do so and you will continue to not have access to GNOME > services. > > Two things strike me here: > > 1). If your preferred username was "cjsmith" we would not be having > this discussion. This is very true. However, my family is more important to me than GNOME, and I represent my family in my contributions to GNOME. > Despite your protestations to the contrary, this crusade you're on > is not motivated by any interest in improving GNOME services, but > by your desire to have the username you want. Let me protest again to the contrary. This "crusaide" is my introduction to the policies of the GNOME community. This is a policy that, to my understanding, is not in place for any reason other than historical lack of support of "non-standard" authentication mechanisms. If I cannot make a minor change here, how can I expect to make any change in the future? I am in essence asking the GNOME community to assert its ability to make reasonable requests of its members. If the username length limitation policy is reasonable, I will adhere to it. It has not, IMHO, been proved reasonable just yet. The amount of annoyance I experienced having to explicitly use 'v-cjcoll@' and 'cjcoll@' for commands such as ssh in the past (often requiring modification of otherwise-standard shell scripts) is larger than this petitioning process, and I will continue discussing it with the community until someone explains to me how the world is a better place by my acceptance of this policy. My hopes is that future users will also benefit from my work to amend this policy. > 2). You talk about the work you have done for GNOME, and yet you're > willing to let a module you have recently pushed to maintain slide > into further deprecation pending you getting the username you > want. I am a patient man. I view my contributions to GNOME as a long-term investment. A slight policy modification now will save me many hours of tedious work over the span of the rest of my life. I view the further deprecation of gtkglarea during the span of this policy amendment discussion as an acceptable cost, when viewed in this perspective. > If you're dedicated to GNOME software development, actions speak > louder than words. Stop tilting the username windmill and get > hacking. I am hacking. GNOME's policies need attention just as much our software. > This is not a problem for anyone else. You're the only one > complaining about it. In your own words, "you can't have your desired username (which I could not, either)." It seems to me that it is in fact a problem for someone other than me. Ross also expressed that he has come up against this issue as well. > This "issue" has not caused any problems in terms of delivering > services to GNOME contributors. If it was such a big issue, I would > expect that it would have had at least one consequence before now. > Please re-state this. I do not know what you mean by "consequence." > It hasn't, other than the fact your last name isn't Smith. It's a > tempest in a teapot. I do not know what a "tempest in a teapot" is. > Until we hit a wall that forces us to reconsider this policy, I see > no reason to change the policy to something that could break from > something that is not broken. What would such a wall look like? It seems to me that (at least) three contributors to the GNOME project have had problems with this policy. This sounds like a wall to me. > One man's opinion. But my question to you is, "Are you more > interested in your vanity username or does your desire to > contribute to the project trump that? If you're so dedicated to the > GNOME project, why is the fact you can't have your desired > username (which I could not, either) stopping you from being a > productive contributor?" My single selfish expectation from contributing to the Free Software community is that my works be remembered, and my name be remembered with them. Therefore, I contribute Free Software under the username cjcollier, not cjcollie, cjcoll, or v-cjcoll. This issue is not stopping me from being a productive contributor to the larger Free Software community. I publish daily under the Free Document License and General Public License as cjcollier colliertech org All I am asking from the GNOME community is that I also be allowed to publish as cjcollier gnome org > Let's move on, shall we? I believe we should address the issue before we move on. There have been no arguments made for the current policy of username length limitation other than conventional wisdom and a claim that 8-character usernames are more scalable. > ./k > > kurt von finck Thank you for discussing this with me, C.J. - -- <cjcollier colliertech org> http://cjcollier.livejournal.com/tag/ +1 206 226 5809 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFD/6QNbS8rWWzCfqgRAkL5AKCf3SvKs8RbMUxUuAo1NcxL4l1lngCgkKY7 FmrsNFIWzhO8U3MxxETSVn0= =ki02 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature