Re: [DNG] devuan-discuss is not useful, quite the opposite

On 2016-11-23 05:06, hellekin wrote: I feel like every time I'm trying to touch something, nobody cares, or resist for some obscure reason. In these conditions, I'm very much doubting my own capacity to bring anything worth to this community. I'd like that it's made clear, so I can better

Re: [DNG] devuan-discuss is not useful, quite the opposite

On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 12:06:34PM +0100, hellekin wrote: > > Come on, it's a linear discussion, much like email. Moreover nobody > gave it a chance to work all the way from conversation to discussion to > wiki to static page with comments looping back to conversation. > Resistance has spoken.

Re: [DNG] devuan-discuss is not useful, quite the opposite

On 23/11/2016 at 12:06, hellekin wrote: [...] > I feel like every time I'm trying to touch something, nobody cares, or > resist for some obscure reason. In these conditions, I'm very much > doubting my own capacity to bring anything worth to this community. I'd > like that it's made clear, so

Re: [DNG] devuan-discuss is not useful, quite the opposite

On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 12:06:34 +0100 hellekin wrote: > On 11/09/2016 11:05 PM, Steve Litt wrote: > > > > The final documentation should be done on something more permanent, > > based on the back-and forth in email. The talk.devuan.org would be a > > great place to put the

Re: [DNG] devuan-discuss is not useful, quite the opposite

On 161123-13:15+0100, hellekin wrote: > On 11/23/2016 01:12 PM, Simon Hobson wrote: > > hellekin wrote: > > > >> ... nobody cares > > > > As someone who is not really in a position to contribute much at all, let > > me say that I'm grateful to all who are working towards

Re: [DNG] devuan-discuss is not useful, quite the opposite

On 11/23/2016 01:12 PM, Simon Hobson wrote: > hellekin wrote: > >> ... nobody cares > > As someone who is not really in a position to contribute much at all, let me > say that I'm grateful to all who are working towards making Devuan "happen" - > regardless of the size of

Re: [DNG] devuan-discuss is not useful, quite the opposite

hellekin wrote: > ... nobody cares As someone who is not really in a position to contribute much at all, let me say that I'm grateful to all who are working towards making Devuan "happen" - regardless of the size of their contribution. I watch (or at least, skim) most of

Re: [DNG] devuan-discuss is not useful, quite the opposite

On 11/09/2016 11:05 PM, Steve Litt wrote: > > The final documentation should be done on something more permanent, > based on the back-and forth in email. The talk.devuan.org would be a > great place to put the finished docs. My problem with talk.devuan.org > is when I used it for brainstorming. I

Re: [DNG] devuan-discuss is not useful, quite the opposite

On Wed, 09 Nov 2016 11:55:35 -0600 goli...@dyne.org wrote: > On 2016-11-08 13:55, Jaromil wrote: > > > > I also very much appreciate the talk.devuan.org documentation > > platform and it is true that's better communicated as such, rather > > than a forum > > Agreed. This is a much better

Re: [DNG] devuan-discuss is not useful, quite the opposite

On 2016-11-08 13:55, Jaromil wrote: I also very much appreciate the talk.devuan.org documentation platform and it is true that's better communicated as such, rather than a forum Agreed. This is a much better description of it's purpose. . . . if someone feels like volunteering time and

Re: [DNG] devuan-discuss is not useful, quite the opposite

On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 03:05:38PM -0500, Rob Owens wrote: > A solution might be to: > > 1) rename this list if deemed necessary And inform gmane of thte change. > 2) route all devuan-discuss emails to dng -- hendrik ___ Dng mailing list

Re: [DNG] devuan-discuss is not useful, quite the opposite

Am 09.11.2016 um 00:44 schrieb Gregory Nowak: > If you wouldn't have just mentioned "the "Debian is Not GNOME" > antagonist pattern," I would have continued in thinking that dng > stands for "debian next generation", as with lprng, which I rather > like actually. Never thought about the meaning

Re: [DNG] devuan-discuss is not useful, quite the opposite

Le 08/11/2016 21:05, hellekin a écrit : On 11/06/2016 02:59 PM, Giovanni Rapagnani wrote: Based on these observations, I think the information on [2] should be updated to tell DNG is the primary ML. devuan-discuss would better be closed and all the subscribers informed that DNG is the primary

Re: [DNG] devuan-discuss is not useful, quite the opposite

On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 01:05:27PM +0100, hellekin wrote: > The devuan-discuss mailing list was created to harmonize the lists: > devuan-announce, devuan-discuss, and devuan-dev, and to move away from > the "Debian is Not GNOME" antagonist pattern. If you wouldn't have just mentioned "the "Debian

Re: [DNG] devuan-discuss is not useful, quite the opposite

A solution might be to: 1) rename this list if deemed necessary 2) route all devuan-discuss emails to dng This will combine the two lists without requiring users to make any changes. If the name change is deemed necessary, the new name can be promoted on the website, but the old email

Re: [DNG] devuan-discuss is not useful, quite the opposite

One thing I learned from Permaculture design principles, which somehow deal very much with community and on many levels: never touch unless you have a reason to. A single "I don't like" is too subjective and won't ever become an executive reason nor decision. you can blow *me* away if I'll ever

Re: [DNG] devuan-discuss is not useful, quite the opposite

On 2016-11-08 06:05, hellekin wrote: On 11/06/2016 02:59 PM, Giovanni Rapagnani wrote: Based on these observations, I think the information on [2] should be updated to tell DNG is the primary ML. devuan-discuss would better be closed and all the subscribers informed that DNG is the primary ML

Re: [DNG] devuan-discuss is not useful, quite the opposite

On 08/11/16 23:05, hellekin wrote: > On 11/06/2016 02:59 PM, Giovanni Rapagnani wrote: > P.S.: in the meantime I edited the web site to remove mention of > devuan-discuss to avoid confusion. But I'd rather do the opposite, and > freeze DNG. I agree with with you. DNG sounded to me like a

Re: [DNG] devuan-discuss is not useful, quite the opposite

On 11/06/2016 02:59 PM, Giovanni Rapagnani wrote: > > Based on these observations, I think the information on [2] should be > updated to tell DNG is the primary ML. devuan-discuss would better be > closed and all the subscribers informed that DNG is the primary ML for > getting help and discuss

Re: [DNG] devuan-discuss is not useful, quite the opposite

On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 at 09:31:31 +0100 Giovanni Rapagnani wrote: [...] > devuan-discuss mailing list was created early May with the hope that was created *in* early May We might add "early May 2016", to let it stay relevant after May 2017. > systemd-free living, Devuan

Re: [DNG] devuan-discuss is not useful, quite the opposite

link [1] is wrong, right one: [1] https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng On 08/11/16 09:31, Giovanni Rapagnani wrote: On 08/11/16 07:32, Giovanni Rapagnani wrote: I will update the webpage accordingly, indicating the talk.devuan.org webforum and the DNG mailinglist as the

Re: [DNG] devuan-discuss is not useful, quite the opposite

On 08/11/16 07:32, Giovanni Rapagnani wrote: I will update the webpage accordingly, indicating the talk.devuan.org webforum and the DNG mailinglist as the main places for discussion, but also the git.devuan.org issues as the place where to report bugs. Once updated, it would probably be a

Re: [DNG] devuan-discuss is not useful, quite the opposite

Am 07.11.2016 um 16:01 schrieb Hendrik Boom: > On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 03:33:26PM -0500, Dan Purgert wrote: >> >> Forums are fine and all, but since this list and IRC are decently >> active, it may be a poor move to try pushing forums as well (given that >> the "discuss" forum is pretty much dead

Re: [DNG] devuan-discuss is not useful, quite the opposite

Dear Jaromil, On 07/11/16 10:50, Jaromil wrote: you are right, devuan-discuss never took off. it also did not receive much love from any admin and I believe is stuck with some moderation bit noone has attended. It is a failed plan which I suggest we interpret as part of the "Beta" as much as

Re: [DNG] devuan-discuss is not useful, quite the opposite

On 11/07/2016 11:29 AM, Miroslav Rovis wrote: > On 161107-10:38+0100, Edward Bartolo wrote: >> This is one important reason why Devuan should have invested effort >> into setting up a forum that uses an interface many would use readily. >> I suggested phpBB like forums.debian.net. The reason

Re: [DNG] devuan-discuss is not useful, quite the opposite

On Mon, 7 Nov 2016 at 09:21:29 +0100 Giovanni Rapagnani wrote: [...] > The information > given on the community page of the website should reflect that fact, and > not erroneously tell people to subscribe to a ML where there is almost > no activity. Sounds to me the

Re: [DNG] devuan-discuss is not useful, quite the opposite

On 161107-10:38+0100, Edward Bartolo wrote: > This is one important reason why Devuan should have invested effort > into setting up a forum that uses an interface many would use readily. > I suggested phpBB like forums.debian.net. The reason given for not > choosing phpBB, as I understood it, was

Re: [DNG] devuan-discuss is not useful, quite the opposite

On Mon, 7 Nov 2016 10:50:43 +0100 Jaromil wrote: > dear Giovanni, > > On Mon, 07 Nov 2016, Giovanni Rapagnani wrote: > > - on DNG ML: 145 different email addresses from 22 different time > > zones have posted 3800 emails with an average of 633 emails/month > > [...] > > >

Re: [DNG] devuan-discuss is not useful, quite the opposite

On Mon, 7 Nov 2016 10:38:08 +0100 Edward Bartolo wrote: > This is one important reason why Devuan should have invested effort > into setting up a forum that uses an interface many would use readily. > I suggested phpBB like forums.debian.net. The reason given for not > choosing

Re: [DNG] devuan-discuss is not useful, quite the opposite

dear Giovanni, On Mon, 07 Nov 2016, Giovanni Rapagnani wrote: > - on DNG ML: 145 different email addresses from 22 different time zones have > posted 3800 emails with an average of 633 emails/month [...] > - on devuan-discuss: 21 different email addresses from 11 different time > zones have

Re: [DNG] devuan-discuss is not useful, quite the opposite

This is one important reason why Devuan should have invested effort into setting up a forum that uses an interface many would use readily. I suggested phpBB like forums.debian.net. The reason given for not choosing phpBB, as I understood it, was phpBB is too demanding on servers. I remember when

Re: [DNG] devuan-discuss is not useful, quite the opposite

On 06/11/16 17:40, Arnt Karlsen wrote: ..that's what we call Stupid Luck. The next step is "when" 170 million voters write in Bernie Sanders for POTUŜ and Jill Stein for VP on Tuesday... I may or may not agree with the former statement, but I think the latter falls more in the category of

Re: [DNG] devuan-discuss is not useful, quite the opposite

On Mon, 7 Nov 2016 09:21:29 +0100 Giovanni Rapagnani wrote: > On 06/11/16 17:40, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > On Sun, 6 Nov 2016 17:14:39 +0100, Giovanni wrote in message > > <5be642ae-c983-3ee3-db68-be1e7657a...@ideanet.be>: > > > >> On 06/11/16 15:20, KatolaZ wrote: > >>> On Sun,

Re: [DNG] devuan-discuss is not useful, quite the opposite

On 06/11/16 17:40, Arnt Karlsen wrote: On Sun, 6 Nov 2016 17:14:39 +0100, Giovanni wrote in message <5be642ae-c983-3ee3-db68-be1e7657a...@ideanet.be>: On 06/11/16 15:20, KatolaZ wrote: On Sun, Nov 06, 2016 at 02:59:13PM +0100, Giovanni Rapagnani wrote: Based on the MLs description on [2],

Re: [DNG] devuan-discuss is not useful, quite the opposite

On Sun, 6 Nov 2016 17:14:39 +0100, Giovanni wrote in message <5be642ae-c983-3ee3-db68-be1e7657a...@ideanet.be>: > On 06/11/16 15:20, KatolaZ wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 06, 2016 at 02:59:13PM +0100, Giovanni Rapagnani wrote: > >> Based on the MLs description on [2], devuan-discuss is the primary > >>

Re: [DNG] devuan-discuss is not useful, quite the opposite

On 06/11/16 15:20, KatolaZ wrote: On Sun, Nov 06, 2016 at 02:59:13PM +0100, Giovanni Rapagnani wrote: Based on the MLs description on [2], devuan-discuss is the primary ML for requesting help and discuss about Devuan. That is wrong! The fact is that DNG is the primary ML for such things.

Re: [DNG] devuan-discuss is not useful, quite the opposite

On Sun, Nov 06, 2016 at 02:59:13PM +0100, Giovanni Rapagnani wrote: > Hello everyone, > [cut] > > Based on the MLs description on [2], devuan-discuss is the primary ML for > requesting help and discuss about Devuan. That is wrong! The fact is that > DNG is the primary ML for such things. > >