On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 12:04:03AM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> Having a single "debconf" was a good idea when it was first started
> in Bordeaux. Since then things have changed, there is more apparent
> demand for conferences and more reluctance to travel.
It appears that I not be in the major
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 07:25:19AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> It's a bit more complicated than that.
[...]
Thanks for the clarifications.
While it may be true that ALS would have gone belly-up anyway along with
so many other innocent bystanders to the dot-com bust, I think a the
decision to ta
On Sat, May 24, 2003 at 01:41:56AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> True enough, but since USENIX took over Atlanta Linux Showcase, ran it
> for one year, and then shot it in the back of a head like a drug kingpin
> assassinating an unwanted lieutenant, Debian developers in the U.S.,
> particula
On Mon, 26 May 2003 23:43, Joe Drew wrote:
> On Sunday, May 25, 2003, at 08:10 PM, Jonathan Oxer wrote:
> > Maybe a reasonable compromise would be to have 2 'official' debconfs /
> > year, as 'Debconf North' and 'Debconf South' (as in Northern and
> > Southern hemisphere).
>
> I've got no problem
On Sunday, May 25, 2003, at 08:10 PM, Jonathan Oxer wrote:
Maybe a reasonable compromise would be to have 2 'official' debconfs /
year, as 'Debconf North' and 'Debconf South' (as in Northern and
Southern hemisphere).
I've got no problem with this. I wouldn't really even have any problem
with a De
On Sat, 2003-05-24 at 15:27, Brian May wrote:
> On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 05:25:29PM -0400, Joe Drew wrote:
> > Do we need some method of deciding what constitutes 'the' Debconf?
>
> No, as everyone knows that the only true "Debconf" are the ones in
> Australia, with LCA.
Hehe, preach it brother
* Joe Drew ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030524 01:11]:
> It's not entirely clear to me what makes Debconf into 'the' Debian
> conference. For example, if this conference in the US ends up
> happening, what's to say it isn't Debconf 3? The defining
> characteristics, so far as I can define them, are that
On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 10:02:42PM -0400, David B Harris wrote:
> The problem is that people who can get expenses reimbursed need to have
> a focus. Sponsors need to have a focus. There needs to be a "major"
> conference for these kinds of things; in other words, it has to be
> billed as something
On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 05:25:29PM -0400, Joe Drew wrote:
> Do we need some method of deciding what constitutes 'the' Debconf?
No, as everyone knows that the only true "Debconf" are the ones in
Australia, with LCA.
;-).
--
Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Fri, 23 May 2003 17:33:58 -0700
Sean 'Shaleh' Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Debconf" is about Debian developers trying to meet other devels and users.
> Its about trying to make us a stronger organization. Its about hacking and
> all of the other reasons we love Debian.
>
> Treating i
>
> Do we need some method of deciding what constitutes 'the' Debconf?
Or maybe we need to be more freeform. There is no inherent "betterness" of
say the Oslo conference over one held near Washington, DC. Maybe there are 4
of them one year and only one the next. Maybe we start holding one eve
I have no objection to the existence of a Debian conference in the US,
particularly given that people are clamouring for one. (I probably
won't go, though.)
However, I have been bothered by something for a while now: there is no
real way to distinguish debconf from some other Debian conference,
12 matches
Mail list logo
