On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 01:28:46AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 05:43:17PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
The concession you seem to have forgotten is that main is actually
free of partially free software, no matter how necessary, useful, or
close to being free it was
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 01:28:46 -0500
From: Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well, for some values of actually free, anyway.
Is it too much if somebody says Please let others know that I did
wrote this manual? Also, please don't let them change my personal
opinions about X, Y and Z.?
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
requires work and copying the non-free bugs over as well, and you'd
lose the ability to reassign bugs from and to free packages to and
from non-free packages but since the archives would be separated
anyway, I don't consider this as a big problem.
But, I
Le ven 12/03/2004 à 08:19, Mikko Moilanen a écrit :
Declare it as nonfree and I will quit immediatly using Debian, and I
will remove Debian from my relatives and friends too. If A - B.
So what? If you are not able to understand what Free software means,
maybe you don't want to use Debian. There
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:24:38AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Did you fill a bug report against mpg123 asking for just that ?
Is it a bug? Currently, there is no sense in my mind in which
unnecessarly in non-free constitutes a bug. We have
On 2004-03-12 10:36:58 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:24:38AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Did you fill a bug report against mpg123 asking for just that ?
Is it a bug? Currently, there is no sense in my mind in
* Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-12 00:24]:
I see. As a tech ctte member, I would be interested in knowing
how I contribute to this state of mostly not working. Are we all at
fault? Some of us are? Which ones? What can be done to address this
issue?
As I pointed out in
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 12:02:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
It seems reasonable to ask whether the maintainer can just close or
ignore the bug as invalid before N people file M bugs against non-free
with apparent replacements in main.
Perhaps. But you're looking at this wrong: the question is
* Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-11 15:43]:
Ok, but you've also stated I think the Technical Committee is
mostly not working because of its current members, and in a more
general context
If it's not working well, you could at least spell out what you'ld
like to see.
I think I'd
* Ron [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-12 15:53]:
Furthermore, I'd like to hear why you think that I am not honest
and enthusiastic, and ideally I'd like to see some concrete
examples.
Eliza Why is it that you think I said *you* were not he? /Eliza
(and I don't expect you to answer that here,
On 2004-03-12 13:01:31 + Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Perhaps. But you're looking at this wrong: the question is whether the
package can be replaced effectively enough to convince the maintainer
that it's not worth keeping around.
Sure, but that requires a different approach to
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 03:53:00PM +1030, Ron wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 06:25:47PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
Furthermore, I'd like to hear why you think that
I am not honest and enthusiastic, and ideally I'd like to see some
concrete examples.
The only 'example' I can hold you
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 06:19:46PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
* Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-09 01:07]:
I fully agree with you that it's important to follow the documented
procedure when leaving the project, but I don't think you're going
to persuade more people to avoid
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 02:58:02PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Personally, I find swearing much less offensive than making things so
personal that you title threads with things like Serious problems with
Mr Troup or Why Anthony Towns is wrong.
...which is why you felt compelled to quote me
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 08:57:14AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
This proposal is not vapourware nor is it theoretical. We've discussed
it in small groups already, and I believe it's doable, and probably
will result in *.nonfree.org being operational. Sorry to disappoint you.
I believe it's
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 03:34:45PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
One of the good things about Debian is that we don't have some
particular
person culling everything they happen to think is pointless.
One of the bad things about Debian is that we apparently have to
resort to a GR to cull pointless or
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 01:59:04PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
Raul Miller's @debian.org email address bounced for ages, it was
pointed out to him but he didn't fix it; at the same time, he was
posting to -vote and other lists. However, he did not maintain his
packages at all, which lead
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 12:11:17PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
I'm somewhat bothered that the only criticisms you have of the Technical
Committee are aimed at its membership.
Also, I should add: you never talked to any of us [that I'm aware of]
about people who you thought would be better in the
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 11:35:41AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
In the context of the proposed amendment to the Social Contract, one
of many issues is:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 05:56:31PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
Care to share the other issues with us, so might actually resolve them?
That
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 08:05:04PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
* Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-11 13:52]:
But, even more important than individual interactions is energy and
drive.
That's what I'm still trying to figure out about the both of you.
I can only invite you to
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 05:35:31PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
I have no problem with you as a person. I have a problem with how
members of the Technical Committee are appointed, because the current
way seems too conservative.
Well, it's not really me as a person which is at issue here.
* Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-12 13:49]:
Anyways, rereading what you've said, it sounds to me as if your own
priorities have been the most significant obstacle you've had for
fixing what you see as the problem you see the committee having.
Yes.
If you think the committee should be
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 09:19:40AM +0200, Mikko Moilanen wrote:
Declare it as nonfree and I will quit immediatly using Debian, and I
will remove Debian from my relatives and friends too.
OH MY GOD!! NOO!!!1!
Ahem. We grew out of the ..., or I quite! argumentation a few years ago
in Debian.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 08:58:58AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
I will also say this; when you use that kind of language, your will fail to
get your point across. When I saw your that e-mail full of curse
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 12:02:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-12 10:36:58 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:24:38AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Did you fill a bug report against mpg123 asking for just
Thank you for your e-mail. Currently we are working to improve our level of customer
service. Unfortunately to allow for these enhancements we have taken down our
computer system to be upgraded. We have received and filed your e-mail. Please allow
us several days to respond. Thank you for
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't understand you. You claim that all the packages in non-free
should go, and when i point you out a method on how to do that, you
refuse to do that and speak bureaucrasy.
I'm saying that we don't have any policy to permit anyone but the
maintainer
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
the word fuck is used in everyday conversation, and has been for
as long as i can remember.
Except that you made it perfectly clear that in this case you *did*
intend the offense. In fact, you said that something I did meant I
deserved to have you
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I see. As a tech ctte member, I would be interested in knowing
how I contribute to this state of mostly not working. Are we all at
fault? Some of us are? Which ones? What can be done to address this
issue?
Will, I don't agree with the
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 08:20:40PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 09:19:40AM +0200, Mikko Moilanen wrote:
Declare it as nonfree and I will quit immediatly using Debian, and I
will remove Debian from my relatives and friends too.
OH MY GOD!! NOO!!!1!
Ahem. We grew
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 07:27:53PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
That is, the tech-ctty seems to have taken its role to be only a very
last resort when everything is breaking in some situation, but that
can be way too late to get involved. I think a little gentle, and
carefully worded,
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 07:27:53PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
That is, the tech-ctty seems to have taken its role to be only a very
last resort when everything is breaking in some situation, but that
can be way too late to get involved. I
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 05:03:56PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
I have only talked about the re-admission of people to the project.
When someone wants to join again, you obviously look at what kind of
work they did in the past. [...]
I said, in a nutshell, that generally people who've
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 05:56:31PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
Almost the complete debian.org infrastructure got rebuilt after the
compromise in like, two weeks?
Eh? It got diffed against known-uncompromised copies and re-enabled.
That was several orders of magnitude more
work than it will
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 06:25:47PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
* Ron [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-11 15:24]:
My concern is that we find a DPL who is *honest* and *enthusiastic*
about the future they see for the project and who is prepared to
share that vision unabashedly with anyone who
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 05:43:17PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
The concession you seem to have forgotten is that main is actually
free of partially free software, no matter how necessary, useful, or
close to being free it was at the time.
Well, for some values of actually free, anyway.
#
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 19:15:02 +, Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I think the Technical Committee is mostly not working because of its
current members; this is related to the structure of the Technical
Committee and the way members are appointed.
I see. As a tech ctte
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 00:33:37 +, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On 2004-03-11 19:20:41 + Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
non-free.org is vapourware, and god know what standards of quality
it shall have; Debian does have a certain reputation for quality
that purely
Bonjour,
Ce message est envoyé automatiquement suite au mail que vous avez
adressé au service Facturation de FreeTelecom
information.
Vous n'avez pas besoin de répondre à ce message maintenant.
Nous avons attribué le numéro d'identification [freetelecom.fr #1698607]
à votre demande.
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 01:28:46AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 05:43:17PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
The concession you seem to have forgotten is that main is actually
free of partially free software, no matter how necessary, useful, or
close to being free it was
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 01:28:46 -0500
From: Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well, for some values of actually free, anyway.
Is it too much if somebody says Please let others know that I did
wrote this manual? Also, please don't let them change my personal
opinions about X, Y and Z.?
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
requires work and copying the non-free bugs over as well, and you'd
lose the ability to reassign bugs from and to free packages to and
from non-free packages but since the archives would be separated
anyway, I don't consider this as a big problem.
But, I
Le ven 12/03/2004 à 08:19, Mikko Moilanen a écrit :
Declare it as nonfree and I will quit immediatly using Debian, and I
will remove Debian from my relatives and friends too. If A - B.
So what? If you are not able to understand what Free software means,
maybe you don't want to use Debian. There
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:24:38AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Did you fill a bug report against mpg123 asking for just that ?
Is it a bug? Currently, there is no sense in my mind in which
unnecessarly in non-free constitutes a bug. We have
On 2004-03-12 10:36:58 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:24:38AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Did you fill a bug report against mpg123 asking for just that ?
Is it a bug? Currently, there is no sense in my mind
* Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-12 00:24]:
I see. As a tech ctte member, I would be interested in knowing
how I contribute to this state of mostly not working. Are we all at
fault? Some of us are? Which ones? What can be done to address this
issue?
As I pointed out in
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 12:02:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
It seems reasonable to ask whether the maintainer can just close or
ignore the bug as invalid before N people file M bugs against non-free
with apparent replacements in main.
Perhaps. But you're looking at this wrong: the question is
* Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-11 15:43]:
Ok, but you've also stated I think the Technical Committee is
mostly not working because of its current members, and in a more
general context
If it's not working well, you could at least spell out what you'ld
like to see.
I think I'd
* Ron [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-12 15:53]:
Furthermore, I'd like to hear why you think that I am not honest
and enthusiastic, and ideally I'd like to see some concrete
examples.
Eliza Why is it that you think I said *you* were not he? /Eliza
(and I don't expect you to answer that here,
On 2004-03-12 13:01:31 + Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
wrote:
Perhaps. But you're looking at this wrong: the question is whether the
package can be replaced effectively enough to convince the maintainer
that it's not worth keeping around.
Sure, but that requires a different
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 03:53:00PM +1030, Ron wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 06:25:47PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
Furthermore, I'd like to hear why you think that
I am not honest and enthusiastic, and ideally I'd like to see some
concrete examples.
The only 'example' I can hold you
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 06:19:46PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
* Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-09 01:07]:
I fully agree with you that it's important to follow the documented
procedure when leaving the project, but I don't think you're going
to persuade more people to avoid
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 02:58:02PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Personally, I find swearing much less offensive than making things so
personal that you title threads with things like Serious problems with
Mr Troup or Why Anthony Towns is wrong.
...which is why you felt compelled to quote me
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 08:57:14AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
This proposal is not vapourware nor is it theoretical. We've discussed
it in small groups already, and I believe it's doable, and probably
will result in *.nonfree.org being operational. Sorry to disappoint you.
I believe it's
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 03:34:45PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
One of the good things about Debian is that we don't have some
particular
person culling everything they happen to think is pointless.
One of the bad things about Debian is that we apparently have to
resort to a GR to cull pointless or
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 11:35:41AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
In the context of the proposed amendment to the Social Contract, one
of many issues is:
Care to share the other issues with us, so might actually resolve them?
do most of us believe it's doable in the time frame imposed by that
* Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-12 11:00]:
So, given that you don't think maintainers who neglect their duties
and don't follow documented procedures should be treated the same
as maintainers who leave the project properly, how do you propose
to treat them?
[...]
...but you do
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 01:59:04PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
Raul Miller's @debian.org email address bounced for ages, it was
pointed out to him but he didn't fix it; at the same time, he was
posting to -vote and other lists. However, he did not maintain his
packages at all, which lead
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 12:11:17PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
I'm somewhat bothered that the only criticisms you have of the Technical
Committee are aimed at its membership.
Also, I should add: you never talked to any of us [that I'm aware of]
about people who you thought would be better in the
* Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-12 12:11]:
I'm somewhat bothered that the only criticisms you have of the
Technical Committee are aimed at its membership.
If you had specific criticisms of what it does, or suggestions of
what it will do, I would have no objection to criticisms of
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 11:35:41AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
In the context of the proposed amendment to the Social Contract, one
of many issues is:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 05:56:31PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
Care to share the other issues with us, so might actually resolve them?
That
* Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-12 12:27]:
So, even if you think that the only thing wrong with the committee is
who is on it [and not what it's doing] I still don't see that you've
even tried to fix what you see as the problem.
I never said I did. In fact, I explictly said several
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 09:19:40AM +0200, Mikko Moilanen wrote:
Is it too much if somebody says Please let others know that I did
wrote this manual? Also, please don't let them change my personal
opinions about X, Y and Z.? Yes, it is too much and that's why we
need GNU FDL.
[...]
Declare it
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 08:05:04PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
* Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-11 13:52]:
But, even more important than individual interactions is energy and
drive.
That's what I'm still trying to figure out about the both of you.
I can only invite you to
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 05:35:31PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
I have no problem with you as a person. I have a problem with how
members of the Technical Committee are appointed, because the current
way seems too conservative.
Well, it's not really me as a person which is at issue here.
* Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-12 13:49]:
Anyways, rereading what you've said, it sounds to me as if your own
priorities have been the most significant obstacle you've had for
fixing what you see as the problem you see the committee having.
Yes.
If you think the committee should be
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 09:19:40AM +0200, Mikko Moilanen wrote:
Declare it as nonfree and I will quit immediatly using Debian, and I
will remove Debian from my relatives and friends too.
OH MY GOD!! NOO!!!1!
Ahem. We grew out of the ..., or I quite! argumentation a few years ago
in Debian.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 08:58:58AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
I will also say this; when you use that kind of language, your will fail to
get your point across. When I saw your that e-mail full of curse
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 12:02:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-12 10:36:58 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:24:38AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Did you fill a bug report against mpg123 asking for just
Thank you for your e-mail. Currently we are working to improve our level of
customer service. Unfortunately to allow for these enhancements we have taken
down our computer system to be upgraded. We have received and filed your
e-mail. Please allow us several days to respond. Thank you for
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't understand you. You claim that all the packages in non-free
should go, and when i point you out a method on how to do that, you
refuse to do that and speak bureaucrasy.
I'm saying that we don't have any policy to permit anyone but the
maintainer
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
the word fuck is used in everyday conversation, and has been for
as long as i can remember.
Except that you made it perfectly clear that in this case you *did*
intend the offense. In fact, you said that something I did meant I
deserved to have you
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I see. As a tech ctte member, I would be interested in knowing
how I contribute to this state of mostly not working. Are we all at
fault? Some of us are? Which ones? What can be done to address this
issue?
Will, I don't agree with the
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 08:20:40PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 09:19:40AM +0200, Mikko Moilanen wrote:
Declare it as nonfree and I will quit immediatly using Debian, and I
will remove Debian from my relatives and friends too.
OH MY GOD!! NOO!!!1!
Ahem. We grew
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 07:27:53PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
That is, the tech-ctty seems to have taken its role to be only a very
last resort when everything is breaking in some situation, but that
can be way too late to get involved. I think a little gentle, and
carefully worded,
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 07:27:53PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
That is, the tech-ctty seems to have taken its role to be only a very
last resort when everything is breaking in some situation, but that
can be way too late to get involved. I
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 05:56:31PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
Almost the complete debian.org infrastructure got rebuilt after the
compromise in like, two weeks?
Eh? It got diffed against known-uncompromised copies and re-enabled.
That was several orders of magnitude more
work than it will
77 matches
Mail list logo
