On Sat, Sep 24, 2005 at 04:50:31AM +0200, Sven Mueller wrote: > Don Armstrong wrote on 19/09/2005 23:04: > > On Tue, 20 Sep 2005, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > >>On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 04:27:59PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > >> > >>>So, it's been three weeks, without any word that I've seen. > >> > >>Now it's been four weeks since the delegation, a month since I > >>suggested Branden delegate this, and just under two months since > >>Florian Weimer brought the subject to this list's attention, and > >>there's _still_ been no response to the developers. > > > > This is primarily because there still is nothing concrete to > > report.[1] I will be preparing a summary of what has happened and is > > happening shortly; until that time, please bear with me as I attempt > > to resolve this issue without enflaming the situtation[2] further. > > While I understand that you are busy (as well as the others who are > involved in this matter) and that you need to also talk to the lawyers > which help SPI, the members of the DCC Alliance themselves enflame the > situation further. > They announced that the DCC Alliance will support LSB 3.0. However, > every press item I saw on this matter reported that _Debian_ supports > LSB 3.0 (which isn't officially announced yet, as far as I know). > > The DCC naming, especially their combined use of "Debian" and "core" is > causing a lot of confusion in press and userbase (quite some of my > customers asked me how this announced move to LSB 3.0 will effect their > servers - running pure Debian Sarge). > > This matter needs to be resolved _quickly_ and in a way which eliminates > future confusion.
Indeed, confusion dosn't benifit any of the parties. Unfortunately, whenever there is a chance for confusion, people seem to leap at that chance, and the press seem particularly adept at this. -- Horms -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
