Le Tue, Nov 06, 2001 at 06:07:49PM +1000, Anthony Towns écrivait: > The burden of proof is always on the person making a positive > claim. "Prove that he's never read this book", versus "Prove that he > has read this book", eg.
You're making the positive claim : « #debian-devel is out of Debian's scope » We could continue with such considerations endlessly ... it's not fun. If you could concentrate on the real issue, that would be better. > You've claimed that it *can* be official, and you've claimed that it > effectively *is* official. I don't think you've even given any indication > what the difference between it being "official" and "unofficial" would be, > let alone why anyone would think one possibility is better than the other. Of course I have : - unofficial means "not referenced in any debian documentation" (note that it's mentionned in the welcome mail that elmo is sending to new developers so ... it's already "privately official" :-|) - official means "documented" and therefore #debian-devel would follow the policy that Debian has decided for it (and I propose the "open" policy that let operators kick only on signal/noise consideration) And official is better because the status of #debian-devel is recognized and we won't get back to such problem each time someone gets kicked out of #debian-devel because it would be easier to decide who was right. > in person. The channel could just as easily have been called "#foobar" Unfortunately it's called #debian-devel and people think that it's for person interested in debian development ... scary no ? > and still have the same function. Which is to say, the channel's utility > and effectiveness have nothing to do with its officiality. This can be argued : by officializing it more debian developers will know about it and may join it... by letting future maintainers join (and lurk), we'll let them learn faster how Debian works. It's not only about the channel utility, it's also about the channel "role" (within Debian). > So could you. Seriously. Start again, from first principles, and try to > explain what you're on about. I believe I have been quite consistent with my principles. Maybe some of you don't share my principles. Maybe the majority doesn't share my principles, that's exactly why we can (should) vote. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog -+- http://strasbourg.linuxfr.org/~raphael/ Le bouche à oreille du Net : http://www.beetell.com Naviguer sans se fatiguer à chercher : http://www.deenoo.com Formation Linux et logiciel libre : http://www.logidee.com
