Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
All mail on the debian-women list is public. Not all of their
work is archived in public and they explicitly prohibit IRC logs,
probably both for good root reasons IMO.
What is they?
debian-women contributors
Ean Schuessler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is it possible to just chill out on the chicks? [...]
It's just an example of some general problems (and not one I raised).
Would you have a problem with blind Debianers creating such a list? Nazis or
terrorists sure, but ladies!?! [...]
For at least
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you want to prove there is something nefarious going on, you must
*give the evidence*. The burden of proof is on you.
I know. I'll prove it to people who will actually fix it. It will
not help to publish more info here and will harm helpful
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Once again, your complaint is about a topic restriction, not a
restriction on who is allowed to address that topic.
Cool, so declaring all discussions and collaboration involving
women off-topic for debian-www would be fine with you?
--
To
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But one example *cannot* demonstrate your point. [...]
I was referring to DWN being one example of communication in debian.
Nor, for that matter, does a Message-ID prove anything. You can't say
or remember what's in that message, can you?
Yes,
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scripsit MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Neither feels that the groups it reports on are their main
audience.
As far as I can see, the main audience of DWN is Debian developers,
package maintainers, and other members of the community. This audience
Ben Burton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ah, in which case I salute the innovative way in which you boldly post
to -vote on topics bearing increasingly little resemblance to the DPL
election.
Sorry if I'm communicating it badly, but I think the
debian-women problem includes all the hot topics of
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nope, it doesn't work that way. The translators come to the d-i and
translation team and ask what they can do to help get it translated.
I think this is tied up with the change of installer. It makes
it a bit tricky to figure out who could have done
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark, [...]
That reminds me of one thing that has annoyed me during tbm's
leadership (sorry tbm! You have done most things well):
it has been very difficult to correct the bastard form of
my name listed on db.d.o
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I didn't find the new mentoring programme either. I remember being
told some time ago that a mentor course would be announced,
but now you mention it, I don't recall ever seeing it.
Oh my god, MJ Ray missed an announcement! Everyone, stop what you're
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've been labelled because I fit a similar description to others,
so why not label debian nazi if there is a nazi DD? I think that
shows the absurdity of some debian-women contributors.
Could you please provide
Helen Faulkner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are four points. Of those, three are being done already, namely
^^
the first [1],[2] third [3][4][5] and fourth [6]. There are many other
such references on the Debian Women webpages and
Erinn Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005:03:04 14:07 +]:=20
If debian-women are so good at communicating, why don't I see it?=20
Because you refuse to subscribe to our list or read DWN for ideological
reasons.
I think you'll find many DDs aren't subscribed
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You can list all the mailing lists and fora you read, but the point is that
unless you watch the entire world's open communications, you will miss
announcements. It's a fact of life. The choices for senders are,
basically, to either have a single
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, if someone thinks something should be in DWN, sending a mail
to [EMAIL PROTECTED] really helps.
It helps to get a reply a month later with inaccurate inflated rewrites.
At least it helped for me everytime I wanted to have something covered.
that to MJ Ray while there are
things on the TODO list that effect development directly.
I've had everything from refusals to sign my gpg key (3 or 4)
to being misnamed in documents (twice) because of that error,
all of which take time I could spend on Debian and the silence
of [EMAIL PROTECTED
Jonathan Walther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
Why should the sex imbalance be seen as any more urgent than race,
culture or any of the other tons of ways debian is demographically
different?
Debian already has a debian-women mailing list for discussing such
issues. This indicates
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But you saw no need to consult the people you named prior to including them
in a list of appointees as to whether they would be willing to be a part
of your little sham committee.
So a committee of those people would be nothing other than a sham?
Or are
Ben Burton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As for secrecy, I find your objections interesting. The debian-women
project has been making great efforts to actively improve transparency
of processes and access to relevant documentation throughout debian.
They have? I thought they just posted bugfixes
David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 04:20:40PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
The longest journey begins with a single step. Not even the shortest
journey begins without that single step!
Giving someone a shove down the stairs isn't a real winning strategy
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would be happy to do that, if there is some wider consensus (on
-project perhaps?) that this would be desired, as opposed to unwelcome
noise.
I think it would be a good idea to announce it whenever there's a
debian-related matter coming up, or at least
Lucas Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I second the dead camel and the entire population of Swaziland, not the=20
cheddar cheese. Unless 100 developers wish the cheddar cheese to run, of =
course.
Won't that happen anyway if they leave it out in the sun?
I second the entire population of
Ean Schuessler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] Ultimately the question still stands, have
operations been repaired?
I doubt anyone would take a yes here now, quite rightly. We
need to watch and decide for ourselves.
Would it have been better to let me execute a rapid
and forceful
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ean is right that Debian needs to be more active with SPI. I wish many
more Debian developers were actively watching SPI.
It would help if SPI announced its board meeting dates more widely.
For example, I just looked for the next meeting date. I looked
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 03:08:52PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
It would help if SPI announced its board meeting dates more widely.
I do e-mail spi-general with the info about 2 weeks in advance.
Why would I look for announcements on the list for General
Please take this off debian-vote. [...]
Please stop cc'ing me on list, at least. I read debian-vote.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ean Schuessler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
As I've said, I can be combative, irrational and mean tempered. At the same
time, I was able to get a few years of accounting problems cleared up in a
week or two. [...]
Huh? If you cleared up the accounting problems, why did you come into
this
Anand Kumria [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hereby nominate Angus 'gus' Lees as Debian Project Leader (DPL).
http://people.debian.org/~gus/ is less than stunning. Someone
might want to look at that.
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Subscribed to this list. No need to
Ean Schuessler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The obfuscation continues! Let's not get caught up in the actual problems I'm
trying to put on the table. Let's stay focused on the fact that discussing
mistakes and the efforts to correct them makes you persona non grata.
When you were appointed
Ean Schuessler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 21 February 2005 1:38 pm, MJ Ray wrote: [...]
In general, status reports seem few and far between in the
minutes. Aren't they meant to be part of the normal order of
business under the SPI by-laws? As you were so happy to point
out last
Ean Schuessler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] On occasion, nastiness can be very efficient no matter
how much you wish it weren't so. [...]
In a dozen years, I've not been part of a volunteer project where
nastiness brought better results. Results are needed, but SPI's
not a for-profit company
Ean Schuessler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] I think it really embodies the professional tone and spirit that
Branden brings to all of his endeavors and may help you when you are making
your DPL decision.
Are you still bitter that we don't love you after you made a
meal of cleaning up after
On 2004-07-20 18:29:06 +0100 Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
What's with the absurd pseudo-EU-government formatting? You realise
it's normally used to make documents harder to read, and thereby
discourage participation?
I believe it's normally used to cram as much as possible within the
On 2004-07-18 09:41:28 +0100 Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
This is the kind of thing you need in any GR long before I am willing
to agree to it.
You have lept to the GR strategy, failing to realize that the GR
strategy should *presume* that you have done this work.
This is my
On 2004-07-17 18:37:17 +0100 David Weinehall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 02:26:28AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Is queue-jumping desirable? [...]
Yes, it's definitely desirable. For instance, a person maintaining an
important library that a lot of other packages depend on, is more
On 2004-07-15 22:09:35 +0100 Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 03:54:29PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
Really nice, but I already knew that. Now can you tell me what
prevents FIFO
processing?
Doing it in FIFO would mean the DAM would not be allowed to start
On 2004-07-16 02:35:50 +0100 Michael Banck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Feel free to subscribe to -newmaint (it's quite low-traffic) and
comment
on the AM reports of those applicants if you think they are not ready.
The full AM reports are not posted to -newmaint, if I recall
correctly, so it's hard
On 2004-07-14 13:45:35 +0100 Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, if I would be cited with a private off-hand remark, I definitly
would stop to make private off-hand remarks to the person in question.
Yes, understandable. I think this might be an example of what inspired
James Troup to
On 2004-07-14 18:03:28 +0100 Chris Cheney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm glad you have made it abundantly clear that ftpmaster had no
intention to communicate about the amd64 issue at all.
Alternatively, ftpmaster are not announcing vapour. Maybe you'd like
to know what they are up to, but I'm not
On 2004-07-14 23:15:16 +0100 Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
James stated outright in the NM BOF at DebConf that he didn't delay
people for asking about their progress. [...]
Does he (or anyone) answer the queries?
Was the NM BOF documented, or is this info only known to those who
were in
On 2004-07-13 13:43:59 +0100 Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rationale:
I'm sure, in principle, we'd like an amd64 release soon, but this
looks incompletely explained. In particular, your rationale doesn't
give details of your discussions with the release manager, release
assistants,
On 2004-07-13 14:15:30 +0100 MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In particular, your rationale doesn't give details of
your discussions with the release manager, release assistants,
ftpmasters and
technical committee directly.
In particular, what decision is this proposal trying to overrule
On 2004-07-13 15:03:47 +0100 Clint Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps you could suggest a preferable course of action for him to
follow instead.
Perhaps you could summarise what delegate's decision this GR is trying
to overturn, for those of us only seeing this on -vote?
--
MJR/slefMy
On 2004-07-13 16:18:34 +0100 Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The people actualy putting amd64 on hold are ftpmasters. And I don't
think
he can include any discussions with ftpmasters since all the mail
sent to
them on this issue made its way into /dev/null.
OK, so the GR is seeking to
On 2004-07-13 17:10:38 +0100 Josselin Mouette
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] However, I want to make sure amd64 won't be
dropped because of some random developer at a critical position not
agreeing with that.
I don't think you can really overrule a future decision, however much
you want to. It
On 2004-07-13 18:27:58 +0100 Chris Cheney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Several of the points in the GR fall back to the ftpmaster never
communicates and thus there are no emails to quote. [...]
You should still be able to reference some email to ftpmaster cc'd to
a lists.debian.org list or similar,
On 2004-07-13 22:48:28 +0100 Frank Pennycook [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Surely it is not so much a technical issue as a policy issue?
Then someone should explain why it is non-technical. Technical policy
is not normally decided by GR.
Since
different opinions are being expressed, then in a
On 2004-06-25 06:15:22 +0100 Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 05:42:04AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
That's just so totally American.
Now there's the ad hominem attack you keep referring to.
Actually, it looks just plain offensive from here it's wrong, and
On 2004-06-24 08:31:49 +0100 Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That was because the voters were 20% of the developers, [...]
Consequently, supporters of the last GR have been accused of
gerrymandering because the vote ended up in spring break for some
people.
I would like to note in
On 2004-06-23 17:34:11 +0100 Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] There was also nobody who pointed
me at the subtle inconsistency in the way I interpreted the original
SC.
Sue me, English isn't my native language. [...]
Personally, I apologise for the communications failures. Please
On 2004-06-22 17:28:06 +0100 Graham Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you accept this line of reasoning, the amendments that attempt to
revert to the previous wording won't have any affect.
If one views it that way, these changes will have an effect on the
minds of certain developers, but that
On 2004-06-01 09:19:15 +0100 Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I propose the following amendment, replacing the entire text of the
resolution:
Don't you need to sign it?
We know that, as with every guidelines, there are border cases were
where not were.
re-inforce the release policy that was
On 2004-05-22 02:38:20 +0100 Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
actually, he didn't. he was perfectly correct that software did
not include
documentation, fonts, device firmware or other *DATA*.
Not at all. The inclusive one is the original and proper meaning, as
far as I can tell. It
On 2004-05-06 17:38:17 +0100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The PHP License, version 3.0
Copyright (c) 1999 - 2002 The PHP Group. All rights reserved.
You may like to fix your autoresponder, PHP.net
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
On 2004-05-06 17:38:17 +0100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The PHP License, version 3.0
Copyright (c) 1999 - 2002 The PHP Group. All rights reserved.
You may like to fix your autoresponder, PHP.net
On 2004-04-29 10:29:12 +0100 Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Our official logo (that with the bottle) is non-free, because it is
not free useable. (Failing DFSG #1, 4, 5, 6, 8.)
The open use logo is non-free because the copyright licence
restricts field of use (rather pointless to use
On 2004-04-29 10:29:12 +0100 Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Our official logo (that with the bottle) is non-free, because it is
not free useable. (Failing DFSG #1, 4, 5, 6, 8.)
The open use logo is non-free because the copyright licence
restricts field of use (rather pointless to use
On 2004-04-28 14:43:20 +0100 Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 10:43:15AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
I am not particularly interested in providing a comprehensive list
of
ballot options to cover all possible views of DDs, here.
You are not interested in anything besides
On 2004-04-28 14:47:31 +0100 Scott Dier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2004-04-28 at 10:43 +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
So what? I expect you to reject amendments and refuse to incorporate
them,
given your stated view.
Sorry, but 6 developers think this is a perfectly fine proposal as
written
On 2004-04-28 23:19:40 +0100 Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Documentation and other written materials that are not programs are
not required to meet guideline 3 [Derived works] fully.
The problems with making a distinction of not programs has been
covered on -legal in the past. I
On 2004-04-28 04:26:53 +0100 Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can't believe, from following this list, that the reason
the previous GR failed to be fixed was because the discussion period
was
cut short in the midst of serious progress.
Irrelevant. The previous GR was discussed for
On 2004-04-28 14:43:20 +0100 Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 10:43:15AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
I am not particularly interested in providing a comprehensive list
of
ballot options to cover all possible views of DDs, here.
You are not interested in anything
On 2004-04-28 14:47:31 +0100 Scott Dier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2004-04-28 at 10:43 +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
So what? I expect you to reject amendments and refuse to incorporate
them,
given your stated view.
Sorry, but 6 developers think this is a perfectly fine proposal as
written
On 2004-04-28 23:19:40 +0100 Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Documentation and other written materials that are not programs are
not required to meet guideline 3 [Derived works] fully.
The problems with making a distinction of not programs has been
covered on -legal in the past. I
On 2004-04-26 10:35:02 +0100 Petter Reinholdtsen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Normally, in a political vote, editorial change is used to get
people to believe that a controversial change isn't, giving a minority
a better chance to get their vote passed while no-one is looking.
Like normally is used
On 2004-04-27 21:09:06 +0100 Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] We've been argued a lot of times before that the
SC/DFSG does not only handle pure software but all kinds of data.
Rather, we've argued that it does not only handle pure programs, but
all kinds of software. Data is not
On 2004-04-27 22:27:28 +0100 Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
You were stunned, eh? Could you point me to teh message on
-vote where you expressed your concerns?
He already said he was stunned, so I assume unable to express anything
beyond buh. Long time to be stunned, though.
On 2004-04-27 22:56:43 +0100 Mark Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The controversy surrounding the result really does suggest that for
many
this has been more than a simple textual clarification.
Alternative hypothesis: some people simply don't like the simple
textual clarification.
--
To
On 2004-04-28 03:47:04 +0100 Duncan Findlay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2. that these amendments, which have already been ratified by the
Debian Project, will be reinstated immediately after the release of
the next stable version of Debian (codenamed sarge), without
further cause for
On 2004-04-28 02:41:35 +0100 Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Debian Project,
Hello, is this a union motion? Where do we get the voting cards,
membership books and hymn sheets?
Seriously, why has this proposal just been dropped in from the sky?
Please can you work with Jeroen to
On 2004-04-28 03:33:54 +0100 Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I second this proposal.
Not picking on Joe in particular, but will there ever be a proposal
dropped from the sky without discussion by a generally-known name that
doesn't gain enough seconds for a vote before it can be fixed?
On 2004-04-26 10:35:02 +0100 Petter Reinholdtsen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Normally, in a political vote, editorial change is used to get
people to believe that a controversial change isn't, giving a minority
a better chance to get their vote passed while no-one is looking.
Like normally is
On 2004-04-27 21:09:06 +0100 Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] We've been argued a lot of times before that the
SC/DFSG does not only handle pure software but all kinds of data.
Rather, we've argued that it does not only handle pure programs, but
all kinds of software. Data is
On 2004-04-27 22:56:43 +0100 Mark Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The controversy surrounding the result really does suggest that for
many
this has been more than a simple textual clarification.
Alternative hypothesis: some people simply don't like the simple
textual clarification.
On 2004-04-28 03:47:04 +0100 Duncan Findlay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2. that these amendments, which have already been ratified by the
Debian Project, will be reinstated immediately after the release of
the next stable version of Debian (codenamed sarge), without
further cause for
On 2004-04-28 02:41:35 +0100 Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Debian Project,
Hello, is this a union motion? Where do we get the voting cards,
membership books and hymn sheets?
Seriously, why has this proposal just been dropped in from the sky?
Please can you work with Jeroen
On 2004-04-28 03:33:54 +0100 Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I second this proposal.
Not picking on Joe in particular, but will there ever be a proposal
dropped from the sky without discussion by a generally-known name that
doesn't gain enough seconds for a vote before it can be
On 2004-04-17 01:21:59 +0100 Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
no, it's the loony extremists who want to throw out good software
just because
they don't have carte-blanche to modify the documentation that are
being
silly.
For the definition: loony, adj - disagreeing with Craig.
For
On 2004-04-16 04:32:57 +0100 Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 09:19:39AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Even if not decided unanimously, the jury doesn't seem to be in
much
doubt on it
where's the GR and the vote? hasn't happened. where's the policy
decision?
doesn't
On 2004-04-15 06:42:03 +0100 Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Apr 08, 2004 at 10:36:07PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
maintainers who think (presumably because of the nonsense puffed out
over the years) that the DFSG doesn't apply to documentation.
as i pointed out in my last
On 2004-04-15 06:42:03 +0100 Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Apr 08, 2004 at 10:36:07PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
maintainers who think (presumably because of the nonsense puffed out
over the years) that the DFSG doesn't apply to documentation.
as i pointed out in my last
On 2004-03-26 18:01:41 + Dale C. Scheetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have just plowed through a large wad of messages on this thread,
and the
only thing I have to say is that every everything I have read is self
justification or off topic crap.
I think there were some interesting points
On 2004-03-26 18:01:41 + Dale C. Scheetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have just plowed through a large wad of messages on this thread,
and the
only thing I have to say is that every everything I have read is self
justification or off topic crap.
I think there were some interesting points
On 2004-03-12 22:49:26 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 12:02:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
It seems reasonable to ask whether the maintainer can just close or
ignore
the bug as invalid before N people file M bugs against non-free with
apparent replacements
On 2004-03-13 14:36:21 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sat, Mar 13, 2004 at 10:33:32AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-12 22:49:26 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 12:02:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
It seems reasonable to ask whether the maintainer
On 2004-03-12 22:49:26 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 12:02:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
It seems reasonable to ask whether the maintainer can just close or
ignore
the bug as invalid before N people file M bugs against non-free with
apparent replacements
On 2004-03-13 14:36:21 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sat, Mar 13, 2004 at 10:33:32AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-12 22:49:26 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 12:02:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
It seems reasonable to ask whether
On 2004-03-12 10:36:58 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:24:38AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Did you fill a bug report against mpg123 asking for just that ?
Is it a bug? Currently, there is no sense in my mind in
On 2004-03-12 13:01:31 + Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Perhaps. But you're looking at this wrong: the question is whether the
package can be replaced effectively enough to convince the maintainer
that it's not worth keeping around.
Sure, but that requires a different approach to
On 2004-03-12 10:36:58 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:24:38AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Did you fill a bug report against mpg123 asking for just that ?
Is it a bug? Currently, there is no sense in my mind
On 2004-03-12 13:01:31 + Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
wrote:
Perhaps. But you're looking at this wrong: the question is whether the
package can be replaced effectively enough to convince the maintainer
that it's not worth keeping around.
Sure, but that requires a different
On 2004-03-11 04:58:02 + Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Personally, I find swearing much less offensive than making things so
personal that you title threads with things like Serious problems
with
Mr Troup or Why Anthony Towns is wrong. [...]
Acutally, it seems common that debian
On 2004-03-11 15:33:10 + Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:50:14AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-11 10:48:54 + Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[...] Avoiding making individuals the focus of
a thread is both more obnoxious, and easier to avoid
On 2004-03-11 19:20:41 + Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
non-free.org is vapourware, and god know what standards of
quality it shall have; Debian does have a certain reputation
for quality that purely hypothetical organizations have difficulty
in matching.
Having just
On 2004-03-11 08:24:49 + Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
you are also elevating the significance of something YOU claim not to
like
(swearing) to the status of Universal Truth
I suspect far more people dislike swearing. Subscribers are even asked
not to use foul language on
On 2004-03-11 15:33:10 + Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:50:14AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-11 10:48:54 + Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
wrote:
[...] Avoiding making individuals the focus of
a thread is both more obnoxious, and easier
On 2004-03-11 19:20:41 + Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
non-free.org is vapourware, and god know what standards of
quality it shall have; Debian does have a certain reputation
for quality that purely hypothetical organizations have difficulty
in matching.
Having just
A couple of small points that seem interesting to me:
On 2004-03-10 07:33:06 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
But we already have the possibility to do this. The technical comitte
has the power to override the maintainers decision, it is just that
upto
now, nobody cared enough to
On 2004-03-11 01:08:00 + Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
it would be nice if everyone would just shut the fuck up about it.
You first.
Fortunately, Swears like a sailor Sanders is not the most reasoned
of the keep-non-free supporters.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A couple of small points that seem interesting to me:
On 2004-03-10 07:33:06 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
But we already have the possibility to do this. The technical comitte
has the power to override the maintainers decision, it is just that
upto
now, nobody cared enough to
301 - 400 of 648 matches
Mail list logo
