On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 03:40:40PM +0200, Ansgar wrote:
> On Wed, 2020-04-15 at 08:56 +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
> > The point of the trust levels is to distribute the moderation. Whatever
> > metric we come up with, it will involve a certain amount of actually
> > using t
Hi Brian,
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 10:12:21AM -0400, Brian Gupta wrote:
> Do we have to start by making it a mandatory switch? I don't feel consensus to
> move to discourse will be impossible in the long term but it's normal for
> human
> beings to resist change, especially during a time of
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 07:22:53AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
> Would you be willing to list out which points it is from the given
> "cons" category which you see as positives?
>
I'd really rather not at this stage, as I'm already seemingly having to
spend time talking about how Discourse is set
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 12:47:06PM +0200, Ansgar wrote:
> I'm not concerned about marking messages read after some time and
> keeping the view time in ephermal storage for that. But that's not
> what Discourse does: as described elsewhere it stores all read times
> persistently on the server;
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 11:08:45AM +0200, Martin wrote:
> On 2020-04-15 08:56, Neil McGovern wrote:
> > Could I point out that the email program you wrote this message in is
> > doing the same?
>
> Could you elaborate on that? Ansgar seems to use
> "User-Agent: Evo
Hi Ansgar,
To start with, I want to say that I found your mail to be quite
frustrating. I feel it may have been more constructive to phrase
concerns as questions, rather than stating them as facts, and ascribing
motivations or inferances which simply aren't correct. That said, I'll
try and reply
I'm just going to correct things that are factually incorrect here,
rather than label them as pros/cons. I feel a number of things you have
put in the cons column are advantages.
On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 01:31:56PM -0700, Ihor Antonov wrote:
> - Not 100% GPL - some javascript scripts loaded into
On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 03:57:08PM +0200, Martin wrote:
> Is the API stable in general, or only this particular function?
If you're using the stable branch of Discourse, then the API is stable
:)
> I ask in the context of #956705: "ITP: python-pydiscourse --
> Python library for working with
On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 02:16:48PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Do you think that would end up capturing all discussions, with possibly
> a few weeks delay? Is it typical in Discourse use to lock/close threads
> after a certain point? And do you think the API is stable enough for us
> to start
On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 07:39:34PM +0200, Enrico Zini wrote:
> Does Discourse have some kind of export feature, that one could
> postprocess to get for example a mailbox of annotated emails?
>
Yes, though I think there's just automated ways of doing this for the
entire database, or for your
I am going to try and split this out into two replies, so those
following along can see the different issues. The irony of the
difficulty on doing this within email may or may not be lost for others.
On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 02:43:31PM -0700, Ihor Antonov wrote:
> - There are only 2 browsers out
I am going to try and split this out into two replies, so those
following along can see the different issues. The irony of the
difficulty on doing this within email may or may not be lost for others.
On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 02:43:31PM -0700, Ihor Antonov wrote:
> > You have to trust the
On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 04:54:28AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> In that sense, I would expect structured discussion systems such as
> Discourse to be a potential time saver, and therefore lower the barrier
> for contribution to everybody: those who contribute their point of view,
> and those who
Hi folks,
For a little while, I've been keen to see how we can improve our
communication methods, both to make it more accessible to newcomers and to
take advantage of more featureful tooling than has been traditionally
possible with email lists.
As such, I set up an instance of Discourse[0] at
Hi Scott,
On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 10:43:33PM +, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> As long as there are people involved, a certain amount of it is
> inevitable. Putting it in the requirements is bowing to reality. The
> FTP Team sometimes has to make unpopular decisions and it's inevitable
> that
Hi debian-project and ftpmaster folks,
On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 01:37:59PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> - cope well with flames in response to your decisions
> - after training, comfortable with being on the other end of the
> ftpmaster@ alias, which receives a huge volume of
>
On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 02:29:38PM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 12:25:53AM +0100, Andy Simpkins wrote:
> > Where can I contribute to the war chest in order to help fund fighting this?
> On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 09:03:37PM -0400, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
>
Thanks Chris and all for the support that's been shown in this thread,
it really does mean a lot while we're going through this complex period.
On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 12:25:53AM +0100, Andy Simpkins wrote:
> Having read the 'claim' being made, I for one, can not see there being
> a case to
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 09:05:18PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
(Please note: this response is based mostly on the information included in
your message. I only looked cursorily at the actual license of Pale Moon
to confirm that it looks very non-free by our definitions.)
I /believe/ that the
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 03:12:35PM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
Dear Kurt,
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 09:17:27AM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
If on -vote the required amount of seconds have been reached, I
will announce that the GR process has been sarted on
debian-devel-announce.
This is
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 03:46:57PM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 03:30:54PM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
This isn't something that's happened in the past, what's announced is a)
that a GR process has started, b) the various CfVs, and c) the results.
I'd be wary
I have tried not to reply to this, but there's some bits in here I don't
think should go unchallenged, but I'll stick to the major points rather
than replying to each comment.
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 09:15:33AM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
On 9/4/14, Scott Kitterman deb...@kitterman.com wrote:
Tags: +patch
Thanks
On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 11:36:54AM +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
On Ma, 06 mai 14, 13:45:11, Brian Gupta wrote:
All kidding aside, is there a plan to post the CoC, and make it easy
to find from www.d.o? (Perhaps either in the About section, or on
the about Debian page?)
On 11 Mar 2014, at 18:20, Daniel Pocock dan...@pocock.com.au wrote:
There is some ongoing discussion (on debian-legal) about whether the FTP
masters will accept a particular package
For those who weren’t around 10 years ago, I would suggest[0] reading up on
#283578, and associated mails to
Hi Jakub,
On 4 Mar 2014, at 17:40, Jakub Wilk jw...@debian.org wrote:
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 09:13:06AM +, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
Thanks for the suggestion. I hate to be *that guy*, but, these messages are
not spam. They are damaging, time wasting and clutter our views of our
mailing
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 03:25:28PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
Each channel that has the group @debian-ops in it's access list receives
a /mode +b *!*@*.tor-irc.oftc.net. Those who are registered can ask
nickserv to provide them with a unique cloak tied to their account, with
/msg nickserv
Hi all,
Over the past few weeks, we've seen a number of issues with certain
people connecting over TOR, and repeatedly sending various inappropriate
comments to a number of IRC channels in the #debian* namespace,
including #debian-ctte and #debian-women.
Unfortunately, from a OFTC network point
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 10:48:04PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
For IRC it's a bit more difficult, because we do not long our IRC
channels by default (or at least I'm not aware we do), with the
exception of meetings run with the help of meetbot. That means that it
would be rather difficult
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 10:42:14AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
I personally would defer to the Debian press team to decide whether they
feel we should make a public statement at this time. I think we're still
in the middle of our process, which I understand that a lot of people
outside the
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 03:56:29PM +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
I don't think our constitution allows a resolution of the TC to change
how §4.1.4 has to be interpreted for a GR overriding it[0]. It would
certainly need to be checked with the secretary (CC'ed, just in case).
That
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 05:11:17PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Ian - any thoughts on if your tech-ctte constitution GR could address
this?
You mean my TC resolution draft.
Nope, I meant your supermajorty etc draft.
Snipping the rest, as that seems to be something for tech-ctte, rather
than
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 09:21:41AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Didier 'OdyX' Raboud o...@debian.org writes:
Le dimanche, 19 janvier 2014, 12.39:01 Ian Jackson a écrit :
I agree. I think that would be quite bad. We could explicitly state
in our TC resolution that the TC decision can be
On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 07:39:55PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 03:38:46PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Doing that now. :-) Also, I'm more worried with the interactions with
Constitution 6.1.1. It seems to me that a Policy Editors delegation
should have come from
On Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 05:58:19PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Furthermore, I don't think this delegation declaration is
constitutionally appropriate. The policy editors are, primarily,
maintainers of a package.
Indeed, there's potentially an issue here that the constitution states
(8.3)
On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 03:38:46PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Doing that now. :-) Also, I'm more worried with the interactions with
Constitution 6.1.1. It seems to me that a Policy Editors delegation
should have come from the TC, not the DPL.
Dear Secretary, what do you think?
Hia,
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 07:35:26PM +0200, Raphael Geissert wrote:
If people start asking for the non-disclosure of their messages in
other languages or any other way that prevents an automated process
then it is their problem. They would be fighting against their own
desire.
It's really not
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 08:19:27AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
In particular, the constitution does not empower anybody to be the spokeperson
or representative of the Project, therefore it looks logical that only a GR
defines the opinion of the project.
Well, this could be interesting, as
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 12:05:11PM +0100, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
[Paul Wise, 2012-10-30]
Content unrelated to Debian is specifically acceptable on Planet Debian:
http://wiki.debian.org/PlanetDebian#What_Can_I_Post_On_Planet
and this part is written in stone and we cannot change it?
Not
On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 12:11:10PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
Michael Gilbert writes (Re: General Resolution: Diversity statement
results):
...
Why is it that devotee has moved to a private development model? This
seems to be contrary to Debian's goal of maximal openness, and the
On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 03:21:11PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 10:40 AM, dE . wrote:
Maybe someone from the UK can provide a Raspberry PI.
That probably wouldn't be useful. According to folks on IRC, the armhf
buildds are i.MX53 QuickStart boards, they're quite a bit
On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 09:19:50PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
Neil McGovern ne...@debian.org writes:
For reference, I'm in contact with the Raspberry Pi folk, who are keen
to do things with Debian. If anyone wants hardware, drop me a mail!
Are you in a position to press for hardware
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 10:13:38AM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
But I've learned that we need to communicate this a whole lot better. Ideas
how
... would be best directed to debian-project :)
Neil
--
A. Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion
Q. Why is top posting bad?
gpg key -
Hello,
As previously announced[RT:PM], the Debian Release Team held a meeting
on 2 and 3 Oct, 2010 in Paris, France. The meeting was kindly sponsored
by IRILL[RT:PMS]. The attendees were Adam D. Barratt (adsb), Luk Claes
(luk), Julien Cristau (jcristau), Mehdi Dogguy (mehdi), Philipp Kern
(pkern)
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 04:22:43PM +0100, Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Tue Sep 14 12:25, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
We have carried a major.minor scheme as a release numbering scheme
since the Early Days, but it has lost relevance basically since Sarge
(3.1 - But by the time it was finally released,
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 06:42:46PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote:
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes:
[...] but Debian could support companies started by its developers
to make a living of their Debian-related activities, by contributing to
their capital.
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 07:28:09PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
Bernhard R. Link brl...@debian.org writes:
Perhaps there is a way to […] discourage all meta-discussion or
mentioning of fallacy, ad-hominem or strawman on the other
lists.
Perhaps you have a better way of succinct terms to
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 12:46:04PM -0300, Margarita Manterola wrote:
Discussing about this on irc, some people seemed to agree with my view
that the female images are too sexual, and that the image of the
notebook on the pillow is disturbing.
I disagree. The images for the males are just as
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 09:24:14AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 08:13:22AM -0700, Don Armstrong a écrit :
But all of that said, it still needs trusted people to review the
packages, which is where we've traditionally started to have scaling
problems.
This is
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 02:47:11PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Has Debian even ever received a cease and desist letter from a IP
lawyer? Under which circumstances? I am bit tired of lawyers being
mentioned each time the NEW problems are discussed, while it seems,
based on history, that
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 09:29:41AM -0800, Mike Bird wrote:
On Sun January 11 2009 08:17:52 Ean Schuessler wrote:
Ironically, Bdale *is* warping the results of the vote and applying an
editorial voice to the interpretation of the results. I say ironically
because Bdale's actions go far
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 12:54:41AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements
to initiate one are too small.
Therefore the Debian project resolves that
a) The
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 04:46:08PM -0700, C.M. Connelly wrote:
BF == Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
BF For this, though, the relevant field is not copyright; it's
BF trademark.
BF Debian does, IIRC, have a trademark monopoly on the Debian
BF logos; but I can't find
On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 11:25:39PM -0600, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
If some kind person would email debian-devel-announce on Sunday
March 9th 00:01 UTC, and announce that the nomination period is over, I
would appreciate it.
Will do.
Cheers,
Neil
--
Tincho 'Maybe you can
test of freedom is
Debian GNU/Linux |perhaps less in what we are free to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |do than in what we are free not to
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |do. -- Eric Hoffer
--
Neil McGovern
Secretary, Software
On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 04:58:50PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Technically, fixing security vulnerabilities in packages used by on d.o
machines is an answer to your question. There's been some discussion
recently about help potentially being wanted on that score for etch
backports.
And I'll
On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 07:45:09PM -0400, mmlacak wrote:
Neil, thanks for your answers. Pardon my ignorance, but
did you give them as an official SPI member?
I didn't give them as an official response from the board of SPI, but it
can be considered as officially the personal views of a board
On Sun, Oct 08, 2006 at 08:07:10PM -0400, mmlacak wrote:
So, my question is: can we make SPI ( http://www.spi-inc.org/,
http://www.debian.org/donations ) into monetary service which accepts
from and is able to transfer money to any country in the world?
In short no. This isn't SPI's
participated in the meeting.
The minutes of the meeting are attached or also available with the log
of the meeting (plain and formatted) at
http://www.halon.org.uk/debian/dc7/
Many thanks,
Neil McGovern
--
A. Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion
Q. Why is top posting bad?
gpg key - http
On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 08:43:48AM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
Le Mer 12 Avril 2006 08:34, Benjamin Mesing a écrit :
I would strongly suggest, allowing to restrict access to such a site
to DDs. This is because not everyone feels comfortable having
personal information (like your specific
information at http://www.debian.org/logos/
Regards,
Neil McGovern
--
__
.` `. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Application Manager
: :' ! | Secure-Testing Team member
'. `- gpg: B345BDD3| Webapps Team member
`- Please don't cc, I'm subscribed to the list
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
if you have any knowlwde about this subject.
Best Regards
E.KARACA
Hi there,
This is standard spam which, unfortunately, hit one of our mailing
lists.
Regards,
Neil McGovern
--
A. Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion
Q. Why is top posting bad?
gpg key - http
On Sat, Oct 29, 2005 at 09:35:27PM +0200, Wodzu Wodzowski wrote:
Hy. I've got two problems :
One is with mount command problem. I wrote in fstab file:
/dev/hda2 /mnt/winD ntfs ro,user,auto 0 0
1) NTFS volumes are read only
2) You've got the wrong list. You want
62 matches
Mail list logo
