Re: Username length limitation policy

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

> 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,


- --
<cjcollier colliertech org>
+1 206 226 5809
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (GNU/Linux)


Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]