"Dr. Bas Wijnen" writes:
> On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 11:51:23PM +, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> I think it's a horrible idea. One of the major draws of Debian is that
>> we are all here for our own reasons. I don't judge your motivations
>> and you don't judge nine.
> It's
On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 11:55:33AM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> Participation in Debian is voluntary, so saying information disclosure is
> voluntary doesn't really mean anything.
Evidently it does mean something, since here we are discussing it.
> I object to the existence of such a
On Wed, 10 May 2017, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 09:43:31 AM Julien Cristau wrote:
> > On 05/10/2017 01:51 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > > If this became a requirement, I'd have to terminate my relationship with
> > > Debian. These are frankly none of anyone's business.
>
On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 09:43:31 AM Julien Cristau wrote:
> On 05/10/2017 01:51 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > If this became a requirement, I'd have to terminate my relationship with
> > Debian. These are frankly none of anyone's business.
> Sounds like you missed the "voluntary, opt-in"
On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 01:09:28PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I think this is a good idea.
Thanks!
> It would be a good idea to make an annex, giving a list of kinds of
> "interest" that do not need to be mentioned; and ones that should be
> mentioned.
That sounds fine to me.
> Things that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 11:51:23PM +, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On May 9, 2017 8:09:28 AM EDT, Ian Jackson
> wrote:
> >Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> >> However in the interests of transparency I
On 05/10/2017 01:51 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> If this became a requirement, I'd have to terminate my relationship with
> Debian. These are frankly none of anyone's business.
>
Sounds like you missed the "voluntary, opt-in" part?
Cheers,
Julien
7 matches
Mail list logo