On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 10:27:08AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
it's also possible to raise a variety of invalid concerns
in ways that require responses
their comments are only influential in so far as they persuade developers.
These statements apply to both DD's and non-DD's.
--Adam
--
On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 03:11:42PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote:
If people who aren't members are raising valid concerns that need to be
addressed before development can proceed, we shouldn't reject that input on
the basis of membership and call it blocking development.
Right. But it's also
Theodore Tso [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The d-l list has a problem which is shared by many Debian mailing
lists (including debian-vote and debian-devel, and I'm sure it's not
limited to them) which is that far too many people subscribe to the
last post wins school of debate. People don't listen, they
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I suspect that if it were confined to Debian developers, this problem
would be much reduced. Not eliminated, but reduced.
On what is that suspicion based?
I disagree. Some of the worst noiseboxes were DDs and some of the
best moderators weren't.
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 03:02:03PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Personally, I think non-DDs participating is great; the only problem
comes when that starts becoming a way for people who aren't members
of the project to block development; which can happen either by people
spending time arguing
On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 03:11:42PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote:
Likewise, there are plenty of DD's whose S/N ratio is pretty high, and are
(pretty low, that is..)
--Adam
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jeremy Hankins writes (Non-DD's in debian-legal):
I'm not sure I understand this part, though. Do you think that folks
like myself, who are not DD's, should not participate in the discussions
on d-l?
Actually, I think they should not participate
Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jeremy Hankins writes (Non-DD's in debian-legal):
I'm not sure I understand this part, though. Do you think that folks
like myself, who are not DD's, should not participate in the discussions
on d-l?
Actually, I think
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 09:35:32AM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
This is one of the most common accusations leveled against d-l: that the
membership of d-l is skewed and not representative of Debian as a whole.
If that's true there's not much d-l can do about it, of course, and the
whole
Theodore Tso [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
However, I *do* believe that d-l is a cesspit, and I for one am very
glad that in its current incarnation, it is not at all binding and has
no value other than being a debating socity --- a debating socity that
I am very glad that I can avoid, thank you
On 6/12/06, Theodore Tso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The d-l list has a problem which is shared by many Debian mailing
lists (including debian-vote and debian-devel, and I'm sure it's not
limited to them) which is that far too many people subscribe to the
last post wins school of debate. People
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 10:52:45AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Theodore Tso [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
However, I *do* believe that d-l is a cesspit, and I for one am very
glad that in its current incarnation, it is not at all binding and has
no value other than being a debating
Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...] as we've just seen, people (both people from debian-legal and
elsewhere) do seem to think that debian-legal is or ought to be where
these decisions are taken.
Who did that? I must have missed a few posts.
FWIW, I think that debian-legal is a useful
Le mercredi 07 juin 2006 à 12:18 +0100, Ian Jackson a écrit :
Jeremy Hankins writes (Non-DD's in debian-legal):
I'm not sure I understand this part, though. Do you think that folks
like myself, who are not DD's, should not participate in the discussions
on d-l?
Actually, I think
Jeremy Hankins writes (Non-DD's in debian-legal):
I'm not sure I understand this part, though. Do you think that folks
like myself, who are not DD's, should not participate in the discussions
on d-l?
Actually, I think they should not participate, in general.
The arguments that are had
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:18:04PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
Jeremy Hankins writes (Non-DD's in debian-legal):
I'm not sure I understand this part, though. Do you think that folks
like myself, who are not DD's, should not participate in the discussions
on d-l?
Actually, I think
On Tue, 06 Jun 2006, David Nusinow wrote:
On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 08:04:56PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
I'm afraid I don't understand the fear here. What would it mean for d-l
to become gnome.alioth.debian.org in your example?
Non-developers, no matter how much they love Free Software
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 01:33:46AM -0400, Travis Crump wrote:
David Nusinow wrote:
On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 08:04:56PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
I'm afraid I don't understand the fear here. What would it mean for d-l
to become gnome.alioth.debian.org in your example?
Non-developers,
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Starting with What is key for Debian makes it sound like a policy
statement on behalf of Debian, and Just fix the license could then be
interpreted as a demand from Debian that Sun alter the license.
If Sun believe things from random people that easily, then
* Jeremy Hankins [Mon, 05 Jun 2006 20:04:56 -0400]:
The thing is that, no matter how much they work and no matter how high
quality their packages are, at the end it _HAS_ to be a Debian Developer
the one to sign the .changes file. Credit and acknowledgement will go
to the non-developers,
* Adeodato Simó ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060606 11:54]:
No, it does not break. Analyzing software licensing does in fact not
require any developer privileges _at all_, in the same measure _preparing_
a full set of GNOME packages does not, either. But the same way those
packages don't become
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It has happened in the past that the DPL asked a DD and a NM to make
together a team to deal with a problematic license and to give together
official Debian statements. [...]
Whatever happened to that? July's coming, bringing a new FDL draft,
if the news
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, no, that's not actually true. Debian developers get a say in
whatever they're responsible for. Whether that whatever is a bunch of
packages on which they're listed as Maintainer, or a port they've been
maintaining for a few years, or a
Disclaimer: I am not a DD, nor in the n-m queue. I'm also
re-crossposting to debian-devel, because I don't think this discussion
could usefully be had on debian-legal -- and it's not a licensing issue
anyway.
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
I don't believe that saying someone
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not sure I understand this part, though. Do you think that folks
like myself, who are not DD's, should not participate in the discussions
on d-l? Do you think that those of us who are not DD's should put a
disclaimer (IANADD) on every message to
George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do not believe that it is feasible/useful/possible to clarify every single
statement whether stated by an official DD ... It is addressee job to check
that out if they are interested in. If the addressee is not capable to check
official
* Jeremy Hankins [Mon, 05 Jun 2006 09:31:19 -0400]:
My opinion, for what it's worth, is that most DD's, despite occasionally
having strong opinions on licensing (*This* license is _free_, @#$^!)
are totally uninterested in taking the time to sort through the
nitpicking arguments about
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Starting with What is key for Debian makes it sound like a policy
statement on behalf of Debian, and Just fix the license could then
be interpreted as a demand from Debian that Sun alter the license. In
that context, it seems reasonable to point out
Adeodato Simó [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So let's make an analogy. Imagine one day, the bulk of Debian Developers
stop being interested in maintaining GNOME (or KDE, if you wish). The
packages begin to rot, become obsolete, uninstallable, etc. Then, a group
of non-developers who care about
On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 08:04:56PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
I'm afraid I don't understand the fear here. What would it mean for d-l
to become gnome.alioth.debian.org in your example?
Non-developers, no matter how much they love Free Software and Debian,
don't get to decide on the policies
David Nusinow wrote:
On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 08:04:56PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
I'm afraid I don't understand the fear here. What would it mean for d-l
to become gnome.alioth.debian.org in your example?
Non-developers, no matter how much they love Free Software and Debian,
don't get
31 matches
Mail list logo
