Re: Username length limitation policy

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006, C.J. Adams-Collier wrote:

> I keep hearing different information about this policy, but I do not
> yet have the specifics.  Is there a wiki page or something describing
> this policy in detail?  I assumed that 'mneptok' would be an
> acceptable username, since it is less than 8 characters.  Why is it
> not acceptable?  What are the details of the username policy?

You should have already seen that, since it's linked from the
NewAccounts page.

> It will be necessary some day down the road, though.  Perhaps we are
> not far enough down that road to even consider running out of address
> space for usernames.  8^26 is not infinity.  If my brother, Chris
> decides to join the GNOME team, he will run up against this issue,
> since he can no longer use ccollier.  Where do we draw the line?  When
> do we start considering issues?  It seems from your (implied) claim
> that egoism and selfishness nullify requests that you are suggesting
> issues not be petitioned if they directly impact the petitioner.

GNOME account names are really arbitrary as far as development
and contribution to the project is concerned.  The only
requirement is that usernames should be *easy* to match to real
names, and ASCII, short, "easily connectable", with no digits and
punctuation usernames do just that.  It's far easier to remember
xocqr than b.mces.esfahbod1982 is, as random as it may look...

> Allow me to recommend support of first last gnome org as a new policy,
> grandfathering in the current usernames.

Ok, that's a sensible proposal, but that needs to go through the
right channel (see below.)

> I'm not asking you as a GNOME developer or administrator.  I am asking
> you as a member of the gnome-infrastructure mailing list.  My
> understanding is that this list is a forum for discussion of GNOME
> foundation policy.

No, this list is not a forum for dicussion of GNOME foundation
policy.  Not at all.  The foundation-list may be such a list.
But both list are at best advisory.  The GNOME sysadmins don't
have any obligation to follow anyone's (other than the foundation
board, say) advice or preference.  In fact, this list just the
forum for the sysadmins to discuss their issues.  The fact that
its open to public is an added value and should not be abused (by
pressuring the sysadmins for example.)

>  I am asking on behalf of others currently on the list with the
> same question, and on behalf of the future readers of the
> archives who have the same question.

If others have the same question, they can ask it themselves, or
do a typical "me too" at list.  But if you really are willing to
petition this change, you may want to propose it to the board, or
gather signatures to request a foundation referendum.  But for
that, you need to be a foundation member, and for that you need
to have a GNOME account.

> It was recommended to me by other members of the sysadmin team that I
> discuss and debate the topic on this mailing list.  Thank you for
> taking part.

Yes, discussion is always welcome and appreciated, and has been
in this case too.  Just that insisting on something that has been
rejected by at least one sysadmin, and not defended by any of
them, should be considered rejected by the sysadmin team.

> And this is the crux of my question.  Is it important to the GNOME
> community, or is my request merely selfish pride?  I do not think I am
> in a place to answer this question.  Your response makes me feel more
> than a little ashamed.

To answer your question, yes, attitude is indeed very important
in most Free Software projects (especially in the GNU project
which GNOME is part of).

> > I think it's safe to assume that the majority of GNOME developers
> > would rather not risk breaking services for everyone solely in
> > order to assuage your ego.
> >
> > A e-mail alias is reserved for Foundation members.
> What is a Foundation member?

It's all on the website, and indexed by Google too...

> Cheers,
> C.J.


"Commandment Three says Do Not Kill, Amendment Two says Blood Will Spill"
	-- Dan Bern, "New American Language"

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