Re: DEP: 5 Machine-readable debian/copyright - License specifications - Link broken

On Sunday, September 11, 2011 05:34:38 PM Charles Plessy wrote: ... http://git.debian.org/?p=dbnpolicy/policy.git;a=blob;f=copyright-format/cop yright-format.xml http://wiki.debian.org/PolicyChangesProcess ... This is not a proposal to change the policy in the short term. Is the short term

Re: About the statement about Debian and the CC licenses on Wikipedia.

On Friday, March 01, 2013 08:19:44 PM Russ Allbery wrote: Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes: Here are the clauses about DRMs in versions 2.5 and 3.0 of the CC-BY licenses respectively. You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally

Re: Proposal #3: Upstream/Debian Project donations (was: PaySwarm-based donations)

On Wednesday, June 19, 2013 01:38:08 PM Paul Tagliamonte wrote: On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 12:35:36PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote: Sorry, I cannot look at this donations proposal but as a deep failure waiting to happen. While I am warry, I don't think we should mock or block those wishing to

Re: Proposed MBF - mentions of the word Ubuntu

On Saturday, November 09, 2013 15:00:24 Colin Watson wrote: On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 05:35:36PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: (Posted to -project because I'm writing with my tongue in my cheek. Actually renaming and rewording things would be making our own life difficult to spite Canonical.

Re: Proposed MBF - mentions of the word Ubuntu

Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote: On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 11:25:03AM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote: On Saturday, November 09, 2013 15:00:24 Colin Watson wrote: On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 05:35:36PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: (Posted to -project because I'm writing with my tongue in my

Re: Proposed MBF - mentions of the word Ubuntu

On Saturday, November 09, 2013 22:36:49 Steve Langasek wrote: On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 06:00:01PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote: Both the original letter and Mark Shuttleworth's comments make trademark ownership claims that overreach. It's overreach based on the recipient's governing local

Re: Code of Conduct violations handling process

On Wednesday, September 03, 2014 12:29:36 Ian Jackson wrote: I think more guidance for the teams involved would be helpful. The Debconf and Debian CoC statements are too difficult to amend. The DC and Debian teams should develop a process document which those responsible would use to guide

Re: Code of Conduct violations handling process

On September 3, 2014 10:23:14 AM EDT, Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote: Piotr Ożarowski writes (Re: Code of Conduct violations handling process): yeah, lets do censorship. I lived in a country with censorship¹, we didn't have people swearing and nobody dared to say something

Re: Code of Conduct violations handling process

On September 3, 2014 11:17:41 AM EDT, Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org wrote: On Wed, Sep 03 2014, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: [Scott Kitterman, 2014-09-03] We could have an on stage censor with a switch for the microphone. I am disappointed; the response could have been so much more

Re: Code of Conduct violations handling process

On September 3, 2014 12:47:08 PM EDT, Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org wrote: On Wed, Sep 03 2014, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: [Manoj Srivastava, 2014-09-03] Is your position then that condes of conduct and enforcing harassment policies are a form of censorship? (I am congnizent that

Re: Code of Conduct violations handling process

On September 3, 2014 12:52:44 PM EDT, Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org wrote: On Wed, Sep 03 2014, Scott Kitterman wrote: As far as I can tell, he spoke the truth as he knows it. I have no idea if he's right or wrong, but he was stating his perspective and we ought to be open

Re: Code of Conduct violations handling process

On September 3, 2014 7:34:10 PM EDT, Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org wrote: On Wed, Sep 03 2014, Steve Langasek wrote: On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 09:52:44AM -0700, Manoj Srivastava wrote: People associated with the FSF or those who feel i sympathy with them feel offended, I find

Re: Code of Conduct violations handling process

On Thursday, September 04, 2014 09:57:27 Ean Schuessler wrote: - Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote: At least in the United States, people who use the term political correctness in all seriousness as something they dislike and think is bad are generally people with whom you would not

Re: Update to reimbursement procedure (now: max 3 months after expense)

On Monday, October 06, 2014 23:26:25 Lucas Nussbaum wrote: On 06/10/14 at 20:38 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 12:38:31PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: On 06/10/14 at 12:07 +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: Both 2008 and 2011 are more than a year ago, so I don't see any

Re: Systemd

On Friday, November 28, 2014 10:23:29 PM Christian Mueller wrote: Dear Debian Project, I really didn't want to add fire to the debate about using/not using systemd but recent developments made it difficult to remain impartial. Debian has always been about choice. You (Debian) have

Re: Re: Systemd

On November 29, 2014 12:55:16 PM EST, Svante Signell s...@kth.se wrote: Unfortunately it is mandatory, not only the default :( New installs: yes, upgrades: probably, we'll know December 4. Odds for a non-systemd upgrade are low :( Maybe join devuan instead? There's been a number of blog posts

Re: Publicly-readable list for only DDs and DMs to post to

On Monday, July 18, 2016 07:53:23 PM Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 05:46:46PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > > In any case, with the renewed opposition here I'm certainly not going > > to push this issue unless there are others who agree with me and > > disagree with the views

Re: Publicly-readable list for only DDs and DMs to post to

On Monday, July 18, 2016 08:58:53 PM Ole Streicher wrote: > Scott Kitterman <deb...@kitterman.com> writes: > > I do think the example of Ubuntu splitting ubuntu-devel into ubuntu-devel > > and ubuntu-devel-discuss may be a relevant data point. As an active > > partic

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers

On Wednesday, December 07, 2016 11:21:23 AM Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 02:29:13PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > > Can we come up with some way whereby the maintainership authority is > > always shared, somehow ? > > The net result of this would be that anyone who maintains

Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers)

On December 11, 2016 8:50:19 PM EST, Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote: >Scott Kitterman writes ("Re: Formal declaration of weak package >ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose >maintainers)"): >> These changes will req

Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages

On Monday, December 12, 2016 09:23:35 AM Vincent Bernat wrote: > ❦ 12 décembre 2016 01:38 GMT, Scott Kitterman <deb...@kitterman.com> : > > P. S. In case you wonder how maintainerless works, go look at the > > dusty corners of the Ubuntu archive. > > Ubuntu get pac

Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers)

On Monday, December 12, 2016 01:16:49 PM Ian Jackson wrote: > Scott Kitterman writes ("Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers)"): > > If anyone can unilaterally add themselves as maintainer (to pi

Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers)

On December 11, 2016 8:25:05 PM EST, Ian Jackson wrote: >Enrico Zini writes ("Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership >in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers)"): >> On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 03:42:57PM +, Ian Jackson

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers

On Monday, December 05, 2016 10:02:02 PM Ian Jackson wrote: > Tollef Fog Heen writes ("Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers"): > > Because I generally find it's generally the wrong tool for the job. If > > I can come up with a good explanation for why somebody should take a > >

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers

On Monday, December 05, 2016 11:18:41 PM Ian Jackson wrote: > Scott Kitterman writes ("Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers"): > > Nonsense. There's no risk for a non-maintainer to come to the TC. > > A non-maintainer who comes to the TC: > > * Is v

Re: Debian packages advertising non-free services

On Tuesday, August 08, 2017 07:34:47 AM Vincent Bernat wrote: > ❦ 8 août 2017 09:31 +1000, Ben Finney : > >> However, it is easy to find other packages interacting with > >> proprietary services without a free implementation. For example, any > >> package interacting with

Re: Debian contributor Register of Interests

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 "

Re: Debian contributor Register of Interests

On May 9, 2017 8:09:28 AM EDT, Ian Jackson wrote: >Jonathan Dowland wrote: >> However in the interests of transparency I feel that a voluntary, >> opt-in "Register of Interests" is a good idea for the project. I feel >> that such a list

Re: Judging consensus at in-person meetings (was: Re: Bug#844431: Revised patch: Oppose)

On August 21, 2017 6:16:51 PM EDT, Sean Whitton wrote: >[moving to -project; please drop CCs on follow-ups] > >Hello Ximin, > >Thank you for writing this. > >On Mon, Aug 21 2017, Ximin Luo wrote: > >> I don't think using the opportunity of in-person meetings to judge

Re: Let's Stop Getting Torn Apart by Disagreement: Concerns about the Technical Committee

On November 3, 2017 9:09:31 PM EDT, Sam Hartman wrote: >> "Steve" == Steve Langasek writes: > >Steve> Hi Diane, >Steve> On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 11:48:05AM -0700, Diane Trout wrote: >>> I only just subscribed and only have read some of the

Re: Problems with source DVDs.

On March 7, 2018 1:38:42 AM UTC, Hakan Ozturk wrote: >Hi, > >I am getting virus threat warnings after downloading the source dvds. >The virus check was limited to the downloaded iso source files. >I downloaded the files with BitTorrent a second time and I am getting

Re: Expulsions Policy

On Saturday, January 05, 2019 06:48:31 PM Russell Stuart wrote: > On Fri, 2019-01-04 at 23:56 -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > No. That's not how Debian works. This is a volunteer effort, not a > > bureaucracy. Delegates are delegated certain authorities and it's up > >

Re: Expulsions Policy

On Saturday, January 05, 2019 02:34:14 PM Russell Stuart wrote: I have comments only a a couple of the points you raised: > On Fri, 2019-01-04 at 10:57 +, Ulrike Uhlig wrote: > > You are misrepresenting this: it has been said outside of this list > > that this does not represent an expulsion

Re: Censorship in Debian

On Saturday, January 05, 2019 08:42:57 PM Sean Whitton wrote: > Hello Russ, Scott, > > On Fri 04 Jan 2019 at 11:44am -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > > Scott Kitterman writes: > >> I am concerned about Debian becoming over-politicized (beyond the core > >>

Re: Censorship in Debian

On January 6, 2019 12:29:26 PM UTC, Wouter Verhelst wrote: >On Sat, Jan 05, 2019 at 04:24:32PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> On Saturday, January 05, 2019 08:42:57 PM Sean Whitton wrote: >> > Hello Russ, Scott, >> > >> > On Fri 04 Jan 2019 at 11:44am -08

Re: Censorship in Debian

On Monday, January 07, 2019 07:06:28 PM Russ Allbery wrote: > Miles Fidelman writes: > > On the other hand, the IETF seems to do just fine - with a much larger > > base of participants, and a lot more room for discussion and debate on > > contentious issues. Global infrastructure, with

Re: Censorship in Debian

On Friday, January 04, 2019 01:34:41 PM Steve McIntyre wrote: > On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 01:39:27PM +0100, Christian Kastner wrote: > >On 21/12/2018 01.27, Paul R. Tagliamonte wrote: > >> We are not a Government. > > > >We don't have a _Sovereign_ Government, but a Government we most > >certainly

Re: Censorship in Debian

On Friday, January 04, 2019 10:17:56 AM Russ Allbery wrote: > Scott Kitterman writes: > > If censorship isn't the right word (and at best, it's not ideal), what's > > the right word for the chilling effect on willingness to speak in public > > due to the risk of being ejected

Re: Censorship in Debian

On Friday, January 04, 2019 10:55:51 AM Russ Allbery wrote: > Scott Kitterman writes: > > Nonsense unless you define being an adult as completely and fully > > understanding exactly what the hundreds of people around the world think > > is reasonable. > > Any

Re: missing avidemux Debian package

On Friday, January 25, 2019 12:59:35 PM bapt x wrote: > Hello, > > Is there a reason for avidemux video editor not being in the official > Debian package repository? > I see multimedia packages like VLC video player are present in the official > repository so it should not be a legal problem. >

Re: Question for Planet Admins: What Should I do if another Developer Removes my Blog

On May 25, 2019 9:16:09 PM UTC, Holger Levsen wrote: >On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 05:49:13PM +0200, Karsten Merker wrote: >> b) The only case where I would consider a forced removal of >>somebody else's feed by somebody who is not part of planet >>admin to be justified would be if the

Re: Question for Planet Admins: What Should I do if another Developer Removes my Blog

On Tuesday, May 21, 2019 7:41:51 PM EDT Benj. Mako Hill wrote: > Greetings! > > I'm a planet admin although, as you suggest, I think this is outside > of the area of documented policy. > > > > > Imagine that I get a note from a random developer saying they have > > removed my blog from planet.

Re: Results of the Antiharassment Team Survey

Thanks for trying to work this out. Comments inline. Scott K On July 13, 2019 2:23:15 AM UTC, Sam Hartman wrote: > >Hi. In this message I'm speaking as the DPL facilitating a discussion. >I'm trying to explain where I see the project consensus (or in this >case >lack there of). That is I'm

Re: git & Debian packaging sprint report

On July 10, 2019 8:10:40 AM UTC, Sean Whitton wrote: >Hello, > >Over the weekend, Ian Jackson and I met in Cambridge, U.K. to work on >the design and implementation of tools and processes relating to git & >Debian packaging. > >Main achievement > > >We designed and implemented

dpatch was: Re: GR proposal: mandating VcsGit and VcsBrowser for all packages, using the "gbp patches unapplied" layout, and maybe also mandating hosted on Salsa

On Monday, August 26, 2019 6:01:05 PM EDT Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 7/26/19 6:53 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > It's true it's not extinct, but it's close. It's only used by several > > dozen packages now. If someone wanted to push to get dpatch completely > > out of the

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

On Friday, September 13, 2019 10:52:37 AM EDT Sam Hartman wrote: > > "MJ" == MJ Ray writes: > MJ> I have some sympathy with the "send a patch to bugs.debian.org" > MJ> view. Do any developers ignore those and tell people to join > MJ> github to use its private version of pull

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

On September 12, 2019 5:30:24 PM UTC, Sam Hartman wrote: > >I'm trying to move a thread from -devel. > >Ian Jackson responded [1] to part of a consensus discussion on Git > recommendations. I had said that I think we recommend against the use > of non-free services like Github but do not

Re: anti-tarball clause and GPL

On July 24, 2019 12:34:13 AM UTC, Adam Borowski wrote: >On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 02:14:38AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: >> On Wed, 2019-07-24 at 00:49:24 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: >> > ## >> > I do not consider a flat tarball to be a preferred form for >modification. >> >

Re: GR proposal: mandating VcsGit and VcsBrowser for all packages, using the "gbp patches unapplied" layout, and maybe also mandating hosted on Salsa

On July 24, 2019 10:43:57 AM UTC, Phil Morrell wrote: >On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 07:34:02PM +1000, Alexander Zangerl wrote: >> i detest unwarranted, imposed, uniformity. i *love* consistency. we >have >> had consistency in the distribution for ages. we don't need uniform >> workflows. > >It's

Re: GR proposal: mandating VcsGit and VcsBrowser for all packages, using the "gbp patches unapplied" layout, and maybe also mandating hosted on Salsa

On July 24, 2019 1:16:37 PM UTC, Vincent Bernat wrote: > ❦ 24 juillet 2019 12:23 +00, Scott Kitterman : > >> This entire discussion feels to me like a small group of developers >> trying to tell the rest of us "my way or the highway". We are >> perfect

Re: GR proposal: mandating VcsGit and VcsBrowser for all packages, using the "gbp patches unapplied" layout, and maybe also mandating hosted on Salsa

On July 25, 2019 9:46:08 AM UTC, Vincent Bernat wrote: > ❦ 24 juillet 2019 21:29 +00, Scott Kitterman : > >>>> This entire discussion feels to me like a small group of developers >>>> trying to tell the rest of us "my way or the highway". We are >&g

Re: GR proposal: mandating VcsGit and VcsBrowser for all packages, using the "gbp patches unapplied" layout, and maybe also mandating hosted on Salsa

On Thursday, July 25, 2019 11:02:14 PM EDT gregor herrmann wrote: > On Wed, 24 Jul 2019 12:23:42 +0000, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > We are > > perfectly capable of phasing out obsolete workflows without a > > hammer like a GR (remember dpatch). > > Unrelated to the

Re: Pride Month Discussion has Run its Course

On July 6, 2019 6:00:58 PM UTC, Alexander Wirt wrote: >On Tue, 02 Jul 2019, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > >> On 15451 March 1977, Alexander Wirt wrote: >> >> > > The tone is absolutely civilized. >> > > And yet, the cost to people who have to do this education again >and >> > > again is really high.

Re: Pride Month Discussion has Run its Course

On July 6, 2019 9:10:57 PM UTC, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: >On Sat, Jul 06, 2019 at 08:00:58PM +0200, Alexander Wirt wrote: >> But that is my personal mindset I am coming from. If such a mindset >is >> outdated nowadays and not wanted anymore I offer to resign as a >listmaster. > >I think there

Re: Results of the Antiharassment Team Survey

On July 10, 2019 1:36:16 AM UTC, Russ Allbery wrote: >Hi Sam, > >Thank you for sending this analysis and the clear effort and thought >that's gone into it. I'm very glad that you gathered some partial >data, >which is a useful addition to the normal mailing list discussions. > >I do have some

Re: Some thoughts about Diversity and the CoC

On December 13, 2019 4:43:32 AM UTC, Martina Ferrari wrote: >I forgot to say this earlier, but thanks for reminding me: anybody who >wants to report me for CoC violations without me reading the complaint >can do it mailing the other CT members individually. > >On 12/12/2019 19:31, Norbert

Re: Some thoughts about Diversity and the CoC

On December 13, 2019 11:53:21 AM UTC, Enrico Zini wrote: >On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 10:49:12AM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote: > >> No, either we have a CoC or not. >> If it goes so much against your believes, humanity or whatever else, >> that you can't answer in a sane language, ask somebody else

Re: GR proposal: mandating VcsGit and VcsBrowser for all packages, using the "gbp patches unapplied" layout, and maybe also mandating hosted on Salsa

On September 24, 2019 11:15:33 PM UTC, Sam Hartman wrote: >>>>>> "Scott" == Scott Kitterman writes: > > >> For several of these recommendations if I cannot get consensus, I >>> will call for a GR myself. > >Scott> W

Re: GR proposal: mandating VcsGit and VcsBrowser for all packages, using the "gbp patches unapplied" layout, and maybe also mandating hosted on Salsa

On September 24, 2019 12:10:39 PM UTC, Sam Hartman wrote: >> "Bernd" == Bernd Zeimetz writes: > >Bernd> On 7/23/19 7:31 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote: >>> 1- Mandating VcsGit and VcsBrowser, meaning we do mandate using >>> Git for packaging. > > Bernd> why is that a reason for a

Re: Community Team - where we want to go

On Wednesday, October 9, 2019 5:26:39 PM EDT Steve McIntyre wrote: > Hi folks, > > We've had a lot of conversations this year about where the > Anti-Harassment (now *Community*) Team should be going: what we're > trying to do, and the relationship we'd like to have with the rest of > the project

Re: Community Team - where we want to go

;thought through carefully and clear guidelines should be set. > >Scott Kitterman wrote: >> From what does the team believe they derive their authority to do >things like interpret the CoC and to whom is the team accountable? > >Norbert Preining wrote: >> As "ju

Re: Do we still value contributions?

On Tuesday, December 24, 2019 10:51:04 AM EST John Goerzen wrote: ... > pygopherd was removed from testing. That makes sense. But also from > sid, hours after I replied to the bug about this explaining that I was > actively working on a port and asking it not to be removed. It was > anyway.

Re: possibly exhausted ftp-masters (Re: Do we still value contributions?

On December 26, 2019 6:21:08 PM UTC, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: >On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 04:29:57PM +, Holger Levsen wrote: >> > Make the machine-readable copyright file mandatory. >> > It is much easier to "parse" than just a bunch of copyright >information. >> >> hear hear. (as in:

Re: possibly exhausted ftp-masters (Re: Do we still value contributions?

On Sunday, December 29, 2019 9:56:00 AM EST Sean Whitton wrote: > Hello, > > On Sat 28 Dec 2019 at 10:46am -05, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > The same information could be included in the machine readable format as > > comments. It's not the format per se that helps, it

Re: possibly exhausted ftp-masters (Re: Do we still value contributions?

On December 28, 2019 2:30:54 PM UTC, Sean Whitton wrote: >Hello, > >On Sat 28 Dec 2019 at 11:31am +01, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > >> I ceertainly agree that our copyright files should be >machine-readable >> in _addition_ to being human-readable, not instead. >> >> I believe our current

Re: possibly exhausted ftp-masters (Re: Do we still value contributions?

On Saturday, December 28, 2019 10:14:21 AM EST Thorsten Alteholz wrote: > Hi Sean, > > On Sat, 28 Dec 2019, Sean Whitton wrote: > > For packages with simple copyright and licensing, machine readable > > copyright files can take longer to write than a freeform copyright file. > > this discussion

Re: FTP Team -- call for volunteers

On March 14, 2020 9:18:48 PM UTC, Neil McGovern wrote: >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 >>

Re: Draft Delegation for the Community Team

On Thursday, April 9, 2020 5:40:18 PM EDT Sam Hartman wrote: > I'm pleased to finally be able to propose a Community Team delegation > for discussion. During the last year it has become clear that we can > accomplish more at lower emotional cost when we have the Community Team, > Account Managers

Re: Draft Delegation for the Community Team

On Friday, April 10, 2020 9:14:43 AM EDT Sam Hartman wrote: > TL;DR: The concern Scott raises is a good one, and I think he caught me > out on a wording problem in the delegation text. > > >>>>> "Scott" == Scott Kitterman writes: > Scott> Constit

Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian

On April 14, 2020 9:42:33 PM UTC, Sam Hartman wrote: >> "Ihor" == Ihor Antonov writes: > > > >Ihor> I want to leave this as is without final verdict. Everyone >Ihor> should make their own. > >I really appreciate the idea of summarizing the thread; I agree with >you >it has gotten

Real Name was:Re: Testing Discourse for Debian

On April 14, 2020 11:12:10 PM UTC, Sean Whitton wrote: >Hello Raphael, > >On Tue 14 Apr 2020 at 12:28PM +02, Raphael Hertzog wrote: ... > >> He was also concerned with the need to do all work under our real >> identity. Looking into contributors.d.o and db.debian.org, he might >> have

Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian

On Thursday, April 16, 2020 4:58:08 PM EDT Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: ... > Hi, > > I'm contacting you both publicly (via debian-project@) and privately (on > your GMail address) in the name of the Community Team following this > subthread. Sigh. To quote from the recent DPL delegation for

Re: [BTB] Asking vs enforcing (was: [Summary] Discourse for Debian)

On Thursday, April 16, 2020 6:22:32 PM EDT Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > Le 16 avril 2020 23:17:46 GMT+02:00, Scott Kitterman a écrit : > >On Thursday, April 16, 2020 4:58:08 PM EDT Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > >... > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> I'm

Re: Testing Discourse for Debian

On Monday, April 13, 2020 3:38:45 PM EDT Neil McGovern wrote: > 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

Re: [BTB] Asking vs enforcing (was: [Summary] Discourse for Debian)

On Friday, April 17, 2020 5:07:04 AM EDT Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > Le jeudi 16 avril 2020 à 18:39:06-0400, Scott Kitterman a écrit : > > When you say you are acting "in the name of the Community Team", you don't > > get to claim you're just like everyone else.

Mandatory Communication Methods was: Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian

On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 10:12:21 AM EDT 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 otherwise >

Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures

On February 21, 2022 11:33:07 AM UTC, Jonathan Carter wrote: >On 2022/02/21 07:06, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> Currently a DAM warning is a suspension/expulsion with deferred execution. > >I don't believe that's quite accurate, a DAM warning isn't necessarily >meant as a f

Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures

On Monday, February 21, 2022 4:09:37 PM EST Sam Hartman wrote: > >>>>> "Scott" == Scott Kitterman writes: > Scott> OTOH, I think a DAM warning for a single instance of someone > Scott> losing their temper and calling someone an unfortunate name

Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures

On February 21, 2022 5:02:37 PM UTC, Russ Allbery wrote: >Felix Lechner writes: >> On Sun, Feb 20, 2022 at 10:43 PM Russ Allbery wrote: > >>> Or, let me put this another way: one of the fears that I've seen >>> expressed around warnings is that it's a permanent record sort of >>> thing, or

Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures

On February 21, 2022 12:56:43 PM UTC, Jonathan Carter wrote: >On 2022/02/21 14:40, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> I didn't intend to communicate that it was a final step. I think we agree. >> A DAM warning, as you said, indicates someone is on a path to suspension or >> exp

Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures

On Monday, February 21, 2022 12:33:55 PM EST Russ Allbery wrote: > Scott Kitterman writes: > > The reason it feels like a threat of expulsion is precisely because it > > is a threat of expulsion. The minimal possible solution to people > > feeling threatened would be

Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures

On Monday, February 21, 2022 1:05:04 PM EST Russ Allbery wrote: > Felix Lechner writes: > > On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 9:38 AM Enrico Zini wrote: > >> Then you need to start taking responsibility for creating conflict when > >> there was none, which is sadly something I see as a recurring pattern >

Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures

On February 23, 2022 8:50:58 AM UTC, Andreas Tille wrote: >Am Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 12:06:17AM -0500 schrieb Scott Kitterman: >> >> Currently a DAM warning is a suspension/expulsion with deferred execution. >> I >> think every non-government job I've had had a d

Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures

On February 21, 2022 5:32:35 AM UTC, Russ Allbery wrote: >Scott Kitterman writes: >> On Sunday, February 20, 2022 10:13:03 PM EST Russ Allbery wrote: > >>> I guess the other possibility is that people really want warnings to be >>> way more serious than any mean

Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures

On Sunday, February 20, 2022 5:24:47 PM EST Sam Hartman wrote: > > "Felix" == Felix Lechner writes: > In the interest of full disclosure, I no longer have any affiliation > with DAM. > > Felix> With regard to disciplinary proceedings, however, Debian has > Felix> a long way to go in

Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures

On Sunday, February 20, 2022 10:13:03 PM EST Russ Allbery wrote: > Sam Hartman writes: > > Figuring out how to accomplish requesting a statement is a little > > tricky, but I think it is worth the effort. DAM takes membership > > actions (including warnings) by consensus. It's fairly difficult

Re: Evolving away from source package realms

On October 11, 2022 11:40:20 PM UTC, Charles Plessy wrote: >Hi Didier, > >An interesting side effect of your proposal is that Debian's security >will be higer as uploading permissions will not be broad by default. >And I think that a lightweight processe can be designed to allow DDs to >expand

Re: Evolving away from source package realms

On October 10, 2022 7:56:07 AM UTC, Gerardo Ballabio wrote: >Didier Raboud wrote: >> The last aspect would also be to completely remove the source-package-level >realms; within a subset, there would be no package-specific maintainers or >vetoes; disputes would move "out" from

Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm?

On Saturday, November 19, 2022 9:52:08 AM EST Andrew M.A. Cater wrote: > All, > > This is in the context of a mail to the Community Team raising a query about > fortunes-off - the fortune cookie database that contains offensive > fortunes. > > The specific query was about Nazi quotes from

Re: Brief update about software freedom and artificial intelligence

On February 27, 2023 12:45:38 AM UTC, "Roberto A. Foglietta" wrote: >On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 at 21:47, Russ Allbery wrote: >> >> "Roberto A. Foglietta" writes: >> >> > My proposal to apply the GPLv3 or AGPLv3 - not directly to an object >> > but - to a collection of objects using the database

Re: Lack of replies

On January 2, 2024 6:04:18 PM UTC, Steven Robbins wrote: >On Friday, December 29, 2023 2:18:41 P.M. CST Steven Robbins wrote: > > >> In the case of the BTS: it used to email me but that broke a couple years >> ago and apparently it is hard to fix. So currently a class of us don't get >> email

Re: Lack of replies

On January 4, 2024 3:15:29 PM UTC, Colin Watson wrote: >On Thu, Jan 04, 2024 at 03:54:28PM +0100, Daniel Gröber wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 03, 2024 at 05:10:43PM +0000, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> > >At least people could be warned that because of the domain they send >&g

Re: Lack of replies

On January 4, 2024 2:54:28 PM UTC, "Daniel Gröber" wrote: >Hi Scott, > >On Wed, Jan 03, 2024 at 05:10:43PM +0000, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> >At least people could be warned that because of the domain they send >> >from their mail might not get through. &g

Re: Lack of replies

t; >Am 2. Januar 2024 20:10:27 MEZ schrieb Scott Kitterman : >> >> >>On January 2, 2024 6:04:18 PM UTC, Steven Robbins wrote: >>>On Friday, December 29, 2023 2:18:41 P.M. CST Steven Robbins wrote: >>> >>> >>>> In the case of the BTS: it u

Re: Lack of replies

On January 3, 2024 2:55:35 AM UTC, Sam Hartman wrote: >>>>>> "Scott" == Scott Kitterman writes: > > >Scott> Alternatively, BTS users that are interested in others >Scott> getting their emails might be better off posting from a >Scot