Re: separate discussion and development lists
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 10:10:45AM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote: On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 21:21:02 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote: Is/was DeMuDi a derivative work like debian-multimedia? If so I agree it is easiest to avoid it. If DeMuDi is/was a Debian-internal initiative similar to debian-edu, or those active in it are/was interested in passing it on to Debian, then I still find it interesting to consider using that name as I believe it is well known also outside Debian. Quoting wikipedia: DeMuDi was developed by the AGNULA Project, a European Union funded project to improve access to multimedia software, and was also known as A/DeMuDi, with A standing for Agnula. When funding ceased volunteers continued to work on the project for a short time, but it has now been completely absorbed into the Debian Multimedia Project. not sure about the last part, but it seems it was some kind of derivative work. What about turning it into a Debian-internal initiative? The name might be dead, but we can still revive it as a Debian Blend, can't we? Sorry for jumping into the middle of a thread without reading all of what came before and after. In case it hasn't been said, aiui DeMuDi was implemented as a CDD. Free was frequently to be read saying something like think of it as a custom way of installing Debian to get a well working audio workstation. After the end of the funded period ended all, or nearly all, of the work was merged back into Debian proper. -edrz ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: separate discussion and development lists
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 12:08:20PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote: On 17/08/10 11:58, Reinhard Tartler wrote: On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 20:15:40 (CEST), Andreas Tille wrote: On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 10:10:45AM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote: I've had a small private followup conversation with Andreas about this. He basically came up with the suggestion to turn debian-multime...@lists.debian.org from a *development* oriented mailing list to a *user* focused list. This way users can share their thoughts, concerns and kudos. I thought this was the idea the whole time? While I don't think that this will significantly lower the amount of traffic (well, we actually widen the set of topics), I still think that it will be benefitial for pkg-multimedia, because: - we get more contact with our actual users - we learn what's pressing and bugging them - we hopefully get more potential and real contributors, ideally even new developers WDYT? Every time I think about it, I like it more. I think we should do that. And announce it to the world via d-d-a. I also think this is a good idea. -edrz ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: separate discussion and development lists
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 06:30:11PM +0200, Adrian Knoth wrote: On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 05:58:43PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote: I've had a small private followup conversation with Andreas about this. He basically came up with the suggestion to turn debian-multime...@lists.debian.org from a *development* oriented mailing list to a *user* focused list. This way users can share their thoughts, concerns and kudos. Sounds good to me. I also digged out some mails from the archive with subject closing down debian-multimedia alioth project and l.d.o list, dating back to April 2009. I think I started that thread. At the time the team was pretty small. Just to be clear, I like the new plan to re-purpose it as a user support list better than my previous idea of closing it down. I'm not entirely sure the release team is happy if we'll upload 17 packages just because of a maintainer's email address change, but given the long release cycle, I see no other way if we want to use debian-multime...@l.d.o, unless it's acceptable to see a bug reports now and then on this list. BTW: Many of these packages are pretty old, e.g. no new upload since 2007 for hexter. They are also not available on git.debian.org. It might be a good first step for beginners to get some experience with git, git-buildpackage, team guidelines (multiline fields) and housekeeping in general to help with these 17 packages. WDYT? ;) I would like to work on those. I've been meaning to work on packaging and becoming a DD for many years ... I really wanted to be more involved this year, but life and DebConf sort of got in the way. So, I'll try to get caught up on the rest of this thread to see what others think and have decided. But, if it's still thought to be ok to keep these packages around, I would like to work on them as a learning exercise. -edrz ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: separate discussion and development lists
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 20:15:40 (CEST), Andreas Tille wrote: On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 10:10:45AM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote: Perhaps? My biggest concern is that with 3 lists, it becomes more and more challenging to decide to which list to post. Replies to -vcs mails currently go to -maintainers because of the reply-to, so I guess that would remain. But what about discussion mails on -maintainers, that are supposed to go to debian-multime...@l.d.o? This overhead of meta-discussion about a topic being ontopic or offtopic is the price I see for having a third list. (it could be mitigated with a proper and clear charter, I imagine). For me the maintainers list is way to noisy and I guess a lot of users will see it the same way. Moreover I'm afraid that just because of the name of the list as well as the location users will not even consider subscribing this list (as I would never have done if I would not explicitely asked to raise the Blends topic here). IMHO we have no proper place to discuss the issues of multimedia users inside Debian and that's a pity because we might loose users (and potential developers) because of this. I've had a small private followup conversation with Andreas about this. He basically came up with the suggestion to turn debian-multime...@lists.debian.org from a *development* oriented mailing list to a *user* focused list. This way users can share their thoughts, concerns and kudos. While I don't think that this will significantly lower the amount of traffic (well, we actually widen the set of topics), I still think that it will be benefitial for pkg-multimedia, because: - we get more contact with our actual users - we learn what's pressing and bugging them - we hopefully get more potential and real contributors, ideally even new developers WDYT? -- Gruesse/greetings, Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4 ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: separate discussion and development lists
On 17/08/10 11:58, Reinhard Tartler wrote: On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 20:15:40 (CEST), Andreas Tille wrote: On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 10:10:45AM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote: Perhaps? My biggest concern is that with 3 lists, it becomes more and more challenging to decide to which list to post. Replies to -vcs mails currently go to -maintainers because of the reply-to, so I guess that would remain. But what about discussion mails on -maintainers, that are supposed to go to debian-multime...@l.d.o? This overhead of meta-discussion about a topic being ontopic or offtopic is the price I see for having a third list. (it could be mitigated with a proper and clear charter, I imagine). For me the maintainers list is way to noisy and I guess a lot of users will see it the same way. Moreover I'm afraid that just because of the name of the list as well as the location users will not even consider subscribing this list (as I would never have done if I would not explicitely asked to raise the Blends topic here). IMHO we have no proper place to discuss the issues of multimedia users inside Debian and that's a pity because we might loose users (and potential developers) because of this. I've had a small private followup conversation with Andreas about this. He basically came up with the suggestion to turn debian-multime...@lists.debian.org from a *development* oriented mailing list to a *user* focused list. This way users can share their thoughts, concerns and kudos. I thought this was the idea the whole time? While I don't think that this will significantly lower the amount of traffic (well, we actually widen the set of topics), I still think that it will be benefitial for pkg-multimedia, because: - we get more contact with our actual users - we learn what's pressing and bugging them - we hopefully get more potential and real contributors, ideally even new developers WDYT? Every time I think about it, I like it more. I think we should do that. And announce it to the world via d-d-a. -- Saludos, Felipe Sateler ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: separate discussion and development lists
Am Dienstag, den 17.08.2010, 12:08 -0400 schrieb Felipe Sateler: On 17/08/10 11:58, Reinhard Tartler wrote: On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 20:15:40 (CEST), Andreas Tille wrote: On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 10:10:45AM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote: Perhaps? My biggest concern is that with 3 lists, it becomes more and more challenging to decide to which list to post. Replies to -vcs mails currently go to -maintainers because of the reply-to, so I guess that would remain. But what about discussion mails on -maintainers, that are supposed to go to debian-multime...@l.d.o? This overhead of meta-discussion about a topic being ontopic or offtopic is the price I see for having a third list. (it could be mitigated with a proper and clear charter, I imagine). For me the maintainers list is way to noisy and I guess a lot of users will see it the same way. Moreover I'm afraid that just because of the name of the list as well as the location users will not even consider subscribing this list (as I would never have done if I would not explicitely asked to raise the Blends topic here). IMHO we have no proper place to discuss the issues of multimedia users inside Debian and that's a pity because we might loose users (and potential developers) because of this. I've had a small private followup conversation with Andreas about this. He basically came up with the suggestion to turn debian-multime...@lists.debian.org from a *development* oriented mailing list to a *user* focused list. This way users can share their thoughts, concerns and kudos. I thought this was the idea the whole time? While I don't think that this will significantly lower the amount of traffic (well, we actually widen the set of topics), I still think that it will be benefitial for pkg-multimedia, because: - we get more contact with our actual users - we learn what's pressing and bugging them - we hopefully get more potential and real contributors, ideally even new developers WDYT? Every time I think about it, I like it more. I think we should do that. And announce it to the world via d-d-a. I am new to this list and I can share your thoughts. Some posts are to get lost in the huge amount of posts. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: separate discussion and development lists
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 05:58:43PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote: I've had a small private followup conversation with Andreas about this. He basically came up with the suggestion to turn debian-multime...@lists.debian.org from a *development* oriented mailing list to a *user* focused list. This way users can share their thoughts, concerns and kudos. Sounds good to me. I also digged out some mails from the archive with subject closing down debian-multimedia alioth project and l.d.o list, dating back to April 2009. I never noticed there was still traffic on debian-multime...@l.d.o. Anyway, make this the place for users and keep pkg-multimedia-maintainers for internal discussion. Also note that we should change the maintainer address in the following packages: http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=debian-multime...@lists.debian.org If we want to make debian-multimedia a place for users anytime soon, we'd probably need to change all those packages upfront, IOW, before we release squeeze. I'm not entirely sure the release team is happy if we'll upload 17 packages just because of a maintainer's email address change, but given the long release cycle, I see no other way if we want to use debian-multime...@l.d.o, unless it's acceptable to see a bug reports now and then on this list. BTW: Many of these packages are pretty old, e.g. no new upload since 2007 for hexter. They are also not available on git.debian.org. It might be a good first step for beginners to get some experience with git, git-buildpackage, team guidelines (multiline fields) and housekeeping in general to help with these 17 packages. WDYT? ;) -- mail: a...@thur.de http://adi.thur.de PGP/GPG: key via keyserver ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: separate discussion and development lists
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 12:08:20PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote: debian-multime...@lists.debian.org from a *development* oriented mailing list to a *user* focused list. This way users can share their thoughts, concerns and kudos. I thought this was the idea the whole time? Yes. Every time I think about it, I like it more. I think we should do that. And announce it to the world via d-d-a. In fact announcing this (together with the tasks pages for Debian Multimedia) is a really good idea and I was just intending to make the project more popular this way all the time. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: separate discussion and development lists
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 06:30:11PM +0200, Adrian Knoth wrote: Anyway, make this the place for users and keep pkg-multimedia-maintainers for internal discussion. Also note that we should change the maintainer address in the following packages: http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=debian-multime...@lists.debian.org If we want to make debian-multimedia a place for users anytime soon, we'd probably need to change all those packages upfront, IOW, before we release squeeze. This is actually the wrong move IMHO, because users should NOT be spammed by package maintenance mails. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: separate discussion and development lists
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 06:44:17PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: Also note that we should change the maintainer address in the following packages: http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=debian-multime...@lists.debian.org If we want to make debian-multimedia a place for users anytime soon, we'd probably need to change all those packages upfront, IOW, before we release squeeze. This is actually the wrong move IMHO, because users should NOT be spammed by package maintenance mails. Not sure if we're talking the same: currently, 17 (16 if you count the fixed gigedit package in experimental) contain debian-multime...@lists.debian.org as the maintainer field. If I correctly understand the proposal, then this very address should be used for discussions with users. Hence, to avoid users being spammed by bug reports from the BTS, we need to change the maintainer fields in all those packages to pkg-mmm. -- mail: a...@thur.de http://adi.thur.de PGP/GPG: key via keyserver ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: separate discussion and development lists
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 06:49:58PM +0200, Adrian Knoth wrote: Not sure if we're talking the same: currently, 17 (16 if you count the fixed gigedit package in experimental) contain debian-multime...@lists.debian.org as the maintainer field. If I correctly understand the proposal, then this very address should be used for discussions with users. Hence, to avoid users being spammed by bug reports from the BTS, we need to change the maintainer fields in all those packages to pkg-mmm. Ahh, yes. I perfectly agree here: debian-multime...@lists.debian.org should NOT be used as maintainer field but rather pkg-mmm should. However, I'm not perfectly sure whether we should really push for a move into testing if this is the only problem of the package. Sorry for the confusion I might have caused Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: separate discussion and development lists
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 10:36:09PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 06:49:58PM +0200, Adrian Knoth wrote: Not sure if we're talking the same: currently, 17 (16 if you count the fixed gigedit package in experimental) contain debian-multime...@lists.debian.org as the maintainer field. If I correctly understand the proposal, then this very address should be used for discussions with users. Hence, to avoid users being spammed by bug reports from the BTS, we need to change the maintainer fields in all those packages to pkg-mmm. Ahh, yes. I perfectly agree here: debian-multime...@lists.debian.org should NOT be used as maintainer field but rather pkg-mmm should. However, I'm not perfectly sure whether we should really push for a move into testing if this is the only problem of the package. I was skeptical to this earlier on. I still do not think that I will be subscribing to a users' list myself, but if others will then I won't be in their way :-) I agree that it makes good sense to reuse the existing list at l.d.o. And I suggest to simply start using it: Those packages currently pointing there in maintainer field are not very active packages, so there is also little risk of them stirring much noise. If some of those packages really should be dropped from Debian completely then let's try do that before the Squeeze release to avoid unnecessarily needing to maintain dead weight for a couple of years. But for those packages we keep, let us not burden release-managers with adjusting maintainer field, but instead aim at updating that at the first point release (or, if we are quick, or the release process is slow, then drop an email to release managers emphasizing that it is low priority and we can wait till later if need be). Sorry for the confusion I might have caused No problem (I dare say on behalf of the team): As always you are quite gentle :-) Regards, - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: separate discussion and development lists
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 21:21:02 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote: On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 02:06:45PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote: On 13/08/10 13:45, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 12:01:43PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote: On 13/08/10 08:01, Andreas Tille wrote: BTW, I have another issue: This mailing list recieves a lot of packaging related information which I#m not really interested in. However, de just have this mailinglist debian-multime...@l.d.o. Do you see a chance that we move discussion like this about general project management, Blends stuff, user oriented questions to this mailing list. I was asked to raise the Blends issue here on this list and so did I, but I would prefer if I would not be spammed by bug reports of multimedia packages which I'm simply not interested in. In other projects such split between user oriented list @l.d.o and a maintainer list @a.l.d.o has turned out as quite reasonable. Well, this was discussed at the time of the merge between the two teams. Basically, we decided to have everything on the alioth list because we feared the traffic was so small we would dilute the interest. Perhaps the time has come to rethink this? Perhaps? My biggest concern is that with 3 lists, it becomes more and more challenging to decide to which list to post. Replies to -vcs mails currently go to -maintainers because of the reply-to, so I guess that would remain. But what about discussion mails on -maintainers, that are supposed to go to debian-multime...@l.d.o? This overhead of meta-discussion about a topic being ontopic or offtopic is the price I see for having a third list. (it could be mitigated with a proper and clear charter, I imagine). As I see it we now do not discuss opening up another communication channel but (re)using an old brand when marketing (some or all of) what we produce. At the time we decided to use pkg-multimedia-maintainers instead of debian-multimedia because it avoids the name clash with Marillat's repository. (Just another datapoint to consider). Yeah, we still see on our irc channel #debian-multimedia that every few weeks some confused users asks about problems with debian-multimedia.org packages. :-/ Is/was DeMuDi a derivative work like debian-multimedia? If so I agree it is easiest to avoid it. If DeMuDi is/was a Debian-internal initiative similar to debian-edu, or those active in it are/was interested in passing it on to Debian, then I still find it interesting to consider using that name as I believe it is well known also outside Debian. Quoting wikipedia: DeMuDi was developed by the AGNULA Project, a European Union funded project to improve access to multimedia software, and was also known as A/DeMuDi, with A standing for Agnula. When funding ceased volunteers continued to work on the project for a short time, but it has now been completely absorbed into the Debian Multimedia Project. not sure about the last part, but it seems it was some kind of derivative work. What about turning it into a Debian-internal initiative? The name might be dead, but we can still revive it as a Debian Blend, can't we? -- Gruesse/greetings, Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4 ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: separate discussion and development lists
On 14/08/10 04:10, Reinhard Tartler wrote: On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 21:21:02 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote: On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 02:06:45PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote: On 13/08/10 13:45, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 12:01:43PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote: On 13/08/10 08:01, Andreas Tille wrote: BTW, I have another issue: This mailing list recieves a lot of packaging related information which I#m not really interested in. However, de just have this mailinglist debian-multime...@l.d.o. Do you see a chance that we move discussion like this about general project management, Blends stuff, user oriented questions to this mailing list. I was asked to raise the Blends issue here on this list and so did I, but I would prefer if I would not be spammed by bug reports of multimedia packages which I'm simply not interested in. In other projects such split between user oriented list @l.d.o and a maintainer list @a.l.d.o has turned out as quite reasonable. Well, this was discussed at the time of the merge between the two teams. Basically, we decided to have everything on the alioth list because we feared the traffic was so small we would dilute the interest. Perhaps the time has come to rethink this? Perhaps? My biggest concern is that with 3 lists, it becomes more and more challenging to decide to which list to post. Replies to -vcs mails currently go to -maintainers because of the reply-to, so I guess that would remain. But what about discussion mails on -maintainers, that are supposed to go to debian-multime...@l.d.o? This overhead of meta-discussion about a topic being ontopic or offtopic is the price I see for having a third list. (it could be mitigated with a proper and clear charter, I imagine). We could say: bug reports go to pkg-multimedia, all other discussion goes to debian-multimedia? I'm still not sure if it is a good move or not. I've not seen much discussion around multimedia going on... but maybe we are discouraging it with our relatively high bug traffic? As I see it we now do not discuss opening up another communication channel but (re)using an old brand when marketing (some or all of) what we produce. At the time we decided to use pkg-multimedia-maintainers instead of debian-multimedia because it avoids the name clash with Marillat's repository. (Just another datapoint to consider). Yeah, we still see on our irc channel #debian-multimedia that every few weeks some confused users asks about problems with debian-multimedia.org packages. :-/ Is/was DeMuDi a derivative work like debian-multimedia? If so I agree it is easiest to avoid it. If DeMuDi is/was a Debian-internal initiative similar to debian-edu, or those active in it are/was interested in passing it on to Debian, then I still find it interesting to consider using that name as I believe it is well known also outside Debian. Quoting wikipedia: DeMuDi was developed by the AGNULA Project, a European Union funded project to improve access to multimedia software, and was also known as A/DeMuDi, with A standing for Agnula. When funding ceased volunteers continued to work on the project for a short time, but it has now been completely absorbed into the Debian Multimedia Project. not sure about the last part, but it seems it was some kind of derivative work. What about turning it into a Debian-internal initiative? The name might be dead, but we can still revive it as a Debian Blend, can't we? Well, they were driven by the same person (Free). The alioth project associated with the old Debian Multimedia team is demudi (it still exists, you can look it up). -- Saludos, Felipe Sateler ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
separate discussion and development lists (was: Debian Multimedia Blend)
On 13/08/10 08:01, Andreas Tille wrote: BTW, I have another issue: This mailing list recieves a lot of packaging related information which I#m not really interested in. However, de just have this mailinglist debian-multime...@l.d.o. Do you see a chance that we move discussion like this about general project management, Blends stuff, user oriented questions to this mailing list. I was asked to raise the Blends issue here on this list and so did I, but I would prefer if I would not be spammed by bug reports of multimedia packages which I'm simply not interested in. In other projects such split between user oriented list @l.d.o and a maintainer list @a.l.d.o has turned out as quite reasonable. Well, this was discussed at the time of the merge between the two teams. Basically, we decided to have everything on the alioth list because we feared the traffic was so small we would dilute the interest. Perhaps the time has come to rethink this? -- Saludos, Felipe Sateler ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: separate discussion and development lists (was: Debian Multimedia Blend)
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 12:01:43PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote: On 13/08/10 08:01, Andreas Tille wrote: BTW, I have another issue: This mailing list recieves a lot of packaging related information which I#m not really interested in. However, de just have this mailinglist debian-multime...@l.d.o. Do you see a chance that we move discussion like this about general project management, Blends stuff, user oriented questions to this mailing list. I was asked to raise the Blends issue here on this list and so did I, but I would prefer if I would not be spammed by bug reports of multimedia packages which I'm simply not interested in. In other projects such split between user oriented list @l.d.o and a maintainer list @a.l.d.o has turned out as quite reasonable. Well, this was discussed at the time of the merge between the two teams. Basically, we decided to have everything on the alioth list because we feared the traffic was so small we would dilute the interest. Perhaps the time has come to rethink this? As I see it we now do not discuss opening up another communication channel but (re)using an old brand when marketing (some or all of) what we produce. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: separate discussion and development lists
On 13/08/10 13:45, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 12:01:43PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote: On 13/08/10 08:01, Andreas Tille wrote: BTW, I have another issue: This mailing list recieves a lot of packaging related information which I#m not really interested in. However, de just have this mailinglist debian-multime...@l.d.o. Do you see a chance that we move discussion like this about general project management, Blends stuff, user oriented questions to this mailing list. I was asked to raise the Blends issue here on this list and so did I, but I would prefer if I would not be spammed by bug reports of multimedia packages which I'm simply not interested in. In other projects such split between user oriented list @l.d.o and a maintainer list @a.l.d.o has turned out as quite reasonable. Well, this was discussed at the time of the merge between the two teams. Basically, we decided to have everything on the alioth list because we feared the traffic was so small we would dilute the interest. Perhaps the time has come to rethink this? As I see it we now do not discuss opening up another communication channel but (re)using an old brand when marketing (some or all of) what we produce. At the time we decided to use pkg-multimedia-maintainers instead of debian-multimedia because it avoids the name clash with Marillat's repository. (Just another datapoint to consider). -- Saludos, Felipe Sateler ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: separate discussion and development lists
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 02:06:45PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote: On 13/08/10 13:45, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 12:01:43PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote: On 13/08/10 08:01, Andreas Tille wrote: BTW, I have another issue: This mailing list recieves a lot of packaging related information which I#m not really interested in. However, de just have this mailinglist debian-multime...@l.d.o. Do you see a chance that we move discussion like this about general project management, Blends stuff, user oriented questions to this mailing list. I was asked to raise the Blends issue here on this list and so did I, but I would prefer if I would not be spammed by bug reports of multimedia packages which I'm simply not interested in. In other projects such split between user oriented list @l.d.o and a maintainer list @a.l.d.o has turned out as quite reasonable. Well, this was discussed at the time of the merge between the two teams. Basically, we decided to have everything on the alioth list because we feared the traffic was so small we would dilute the interest. Perhaps the time has come to rethink this? As I see it we now do not discuss opening up another communication channel but (re)using an old brand when marketing (some or all of) what we produce. At the time we decided to use pkg-multimedia-maintainers instead of debian-multimedia because it avoids the name clash with Marillat's repository. (Just another datapoint to consider). Is/was DeMuDi a derivative work like debian-multimedia? If so I agree it is easiest to avoid it. If DeMuDi is/was a Debian-internal initiative similar to debian-edu, or those active in it are/was interested in passing it on to Debian, then I still find it interesting to consider using that name as I believe it is well known also outside Debian. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
