On 14/08/10 04:10, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 21:21:02 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 02:06:45PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote:
>>> On 13/08/10 13:45, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 12:01:43PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote:
>>>>> On 13/08/10 08:01, Andreas Tille wrote:
>>>>>> BTW, I have another issue: This mailing list recieves a lot of
>>>>>> packaging related information which I#m not really interested
>>>>>> in. However, de just have this mailinglist debian-multime...@l.d.o.
>>>>>> Do you see a chance that we move discussion like this about general
>>>>>> project management, Blends stuff, user oriented questions to this
>>>>>> mailing list.  I was asked to raise the Blends issue here on this
>>>>>> list and so did I, but I would prefer if I would not be spammed by
>>>>>> bug reports of multimedia packages which I'm simply not interested
>>>>>> in.  In other projects such split between user oriented list @l.d.o
>>>>>> and a maintainer list @a.l.d.o has turned out as quite reasonable.
>>>>> Well, this was discussed at the time of the merge between the two
>>>>> teams. Basically, we decided to have everything on the alioth list
>>>>> because we feared the traffic was so small we would dilute the
>>>>> interest. Perhaps the time has come to rethink this?
> Perhaps? My biggest concern is that with 3 lists, it becomes more and
> more challenging to decide to which list to post. Replies to -vcs mails
> currently go to -maintainers because of the reply-to, so I guess that
> would remain. But what about discussion mails on -maintainers, that are
> supposed to go to debian-multime...@l.d.o? This overhead of
> meta-discussion about a topic being ontopic or offtopic is the price I
> see for having a third list. (it could be mitigated with a proper and
> clear charter, I imagine).

We could say: bug reports go to pkg-multimedia, all other discussion
goes to debian-multimedia? I'm still not sure if it is a good move or
not. I've not seen much discussion around multimedia going on... but
maybe we are discouraging it with our relatively high bug traffic?

>>>> As I see it we now do not discuss opening up another communication
>>>> channel but (re)using an old "brand" when marketing (some or all of)
>>>> what we produce.
>>> At the time we decided to use pkg-multimedia-maintainers instead of
>>> debian-multimedia because it avoids the name clash with Marillat's
>>> repository. (Just another datapoint to consider).
> Yeah, we still see on our irc channel #debian-multimedia that every few
> weeks some confused users asks about problems with debian-multimedia.org
> packages. :-/
>> Is/was DeMuDi a derivative work like debian-multimedia?  If so I agree
>> it is easiest to avoid it.
>> If DeMuDi is/was a Debian-internal initiative similar to debian-edu, or
>> those active in it are/was interested in passing it on to Debian, then I
>> still find it interesting to consider using that name as I believe it is
>> well known also outside Debian.
> Quoting wikipedia:
> DeMuDi was developed by the AGNULA Project, a European Union funded
> project to improve access to multimedia software, and was also known as
> A/DeMuDi, with A standing for Agnula.  When funding ceased volunteers
> continued to work on the project for a short time, but it has now been
> completely absorbed into the Debian Multimedia Project.
> not sure about the last part, but it seems it was some kind of
> derivative work. What about turning it into a Debian-internal
> initiative? The name might be dead, but we can still revive it as a
> Debian Blend, can't we?

Well, they were driven by the same person (Free). The alioth project
associated with the old Debian Multimedia team is demudi (it still
exists, you can look it up).

Felipe Sateler

pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list

Reply via email to