On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 12:02:42PM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote: > Previously Branden Robinson wrote: > > [please follow-up to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > No, follow-up to debian-vote, it was created for this purpose.
seconded. > > I cannot at present find a canonical list of current delegates. > I'm offline at the moment and the exact URL escapes me, but this list is > on www.debian.org and was created about 2 yaers ago. http://www.debian.org/intro/organization is the one I believe you think of. > > As DPL, I'd like to see this channel's status officially recognized, and a > > position on the two subjects above formally stated. If #debian-devel is > > not to be substantively different from #debian, that is fine; a new channel > > can be created to serve the needs that (in my opinion) #debian-devel > > currently does, and with some access controls in place. > > I'll object to this. #debian-devel should be like the debian-devel list: > open for developers, not closed. That is the way it has been since the > very beginning and I hate to see that change. Make #debian-private if > you want. #debian-private does exist, but nobody goes in there. the channel description reads: Description: This channel is only for Debian Developers + NM Applicants + Mirror Admins + OPN Gods + people vouched for by one of the previous groups Which I disagree with. I think it should be Debian Developers *only*. Basically look after it the same way you look after -private. -- Brian Russo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Debian/GNU Linux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.debian.org LPSG "member" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.lpsg.org -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
