Le 07/11/2012 17:16, J Fernyhough a écrit :
On 7 November 2012 15:23, Colin Watson wrote:
On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 03:28:44PM +, J Fernyhough wrote:
I'm currently looking into how Ubuntu meets the provisions of the Data
Protection Act 1998, and more crucially what would need to be done to
m
On 7 November 2012 15:23, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 03:28:44PM +, J Fernyhough wrote:
>> I'm currently looking into how Ubuntu meets the provisions of the Data
>> Protection Act 1998, and more crucially what would need to be done to
>> meet the requirements, so that I have
On 5 November 2012 15:35, Martin Albisetti wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 12:28 PM, J Fernyhough wrote:
>> (As an aside, it appears that being only enthusiastic
>> about Ubuntu and all decisions, or at least getting in line, is a
>> requisite for employment there.)
>
> It is not.
>
On 7 November
On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 03:28:44PM +, J Fernyhough wrote:
> I'm currently looking into how Ubuntu meets the provisions of the Data
> Protection Act 1998, and more crucially what would need to be done to
> meet the requirements, so that I have some base of evidence and legal
> reasoning to put f
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 4:28 PM, C de-Avillez wrote:
> On 05/11/12 09:08, Jordon Bedwell wrote:
> > This is from my perspective though
> > and I have not really followed all too closely since I am the type of
> > person to remove what I don't want and block stuff like Canonical's
> > NTP and other
On 05/11/12 09:08, Jordon Bedwell wrote:
> This is from my perspective though
> and I have not really followed all too closely since I am the type of
> person to remove what I don't want and block stuff like Canonical's
> NTP and other tracking via our hardware firewalls instead of
> complaining ab
On Monday, November 05, 2012 02:27:06 PM Rodney Dawes wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-11-05 at 13:58 -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > > I don't know if it's been done before or not, but perhaps the Release
> > > Team, and Tech Board, should take up any concerns related to some of the
> > > Canonical project
On Mon, 2012-11-05 at 13:58 -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > I don't know if it's been done before or not, but perhaps the Release
> > Team, and Tech Board, should take up any concerns related to some of the
> > Canonical projects' involvement in that process, with the appropriate
> > members of C
On Monday, November 05, 2012 01:19:51 PM Rodney Dawes wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-11-05 at 12:11 -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > On Monday, November 05, 2012 11:53:03 AM Rodney Dawes wrote:
> > ...
> >
> > > There were large changes to address some specific user concerns around
> > > the dash search,
On Monday, November 05, 2012 08:32:35 AM Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
> > Or is it the case that nobody bothered to file a blueprint? Bear in mind
> > that anybody in the community can create blueprints for UDS, not just
> > Canonical.
>
> Anyone can create one but Canonical does approve them.
There a
On Monday, November 05, 2012 12:14:51 PM Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> On 5 November 2012 11:53, Rodney Dawes wrote:
> > There were large changes to address some specific user concerns around
> > the dash search, that went in *after* various freezes were in effect.
>
> One example is http://pad.lv/106565
On 5 November 2012 13:19, Rodney Dawes wrote:
> I don't know if it's been done before or not, but perhaps the Release
> Team, and Tech Board, should take up any concerns related to some of the
> Canonical projects' involvement in that process, with the appropriate
> members of Canonical staff, inc
On 11/05/2012 11:32 AM, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
>
> On Nov 5, 2012 7:53 AM, "Bruno Girin" >
>> Or is it the case that nobody bothered to file a blueprint? Bear in mind
>> that *anybody* in the community can create blueprints for UDS, not just
>> Canonical.
>
> Anyone can create one but Canonical
On Mon, 2012-11-05 at 12:11 -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Monday, November 05, 2012 11:53:03 AM Rodney Dawes wrote:
> ...
> > There were large changes to address some specific user concerns around
> > the dash search, that went in after various freezes were in effect.
> ...
> That's also true
Le 05/11/2012 18:14, Jeremy Bicha a écrit :
On 5 November 2012 11:53, Rodney Dawes wrote:
There were large changes to address some specific user concerns around
the dash search, that went in *after* various freezes were in effect.
One example is http://pad.lv/1065652 which while obviously a us
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> One example is http://pad.lv/1065652 which while obviously a user
> interface change, happened after Final Freeze without the typical
> paperwork; presumably because it was *that* critical to mitigate the
> privacy concerns.
I think you are s
On 5 November 2012 11:53, Rodney Dawes wrote:
> There were large changes to address some specific user concerns around
> the dash search, that went in *after* various freezes were in effect.
One example is http://pad.lv/1065652 which while obviously a user
interface change, happened after Final F
On Monday, November 05, 2012 11:53:03 AM Rodney Dawes wrote:
...
> There were large changes to address some specific user concerns around
> the dash search, that went in after various freezes were in effect.
...
That's also true of the shopping bits of dash search itself, so without time
travel, h
On Mon, 2012-11-05 at 15:52 +, Bruno Girin wrote:
> It's a couple of weeks late for UDS-R but what about creating a
> blueprint for UDS-S? Get the discussion going, gather examples of
> privacy issues and what could be done to address them. Then at the next
> UDS, we can work out solutions that
On Nov 5, 2012 7:53 AM, "Bruno Girin" wrote:
>
> On 05/11/12 15:08, Jordon Bedwell wrote:
> >> We've just had the Ubuntu Developer Summit during which the next
release
> >> was planned, and everyone was welcome (both in person and online). I
> >> must have missed the session on privacy, or did nob
On 05/11/12 15:08, Jordon Bedwell wrote:
>> We've just had the Ubuntu Developer Summit during which the next release
>> was planned, and everyone was welcome (both in person and online). I
>> must have missed the session on privacy, or did nobody propose one?
> I don't think there was one, I think
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 12:28 PM, J Fernyhough wrote:
> (As an aside, it appears that being only enthusiastic
> about Ubuntu and all decisions, or at least getting in line, is a
> requisite for employment there.)
It is not.
--
Martin
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@l
On 5 November 2012 15:08, Jordon Bedwell wrote:
-- snip --
>
> I think what Canonical and Ubuntu are doing is alienating old Linux
> users who are used to telling their computers what to do, not having
> their computer tell them what they are going to do and then them
> having to step up and almos
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 8:55 AM, Robie Basak wrote:
> Forks happen when people disagree. Is there really any disagreement
> here? Have any privacy-related patches actually been rejected, or is it
> just that nobody has written them?
Patches being rejected are a bit narrow, when the Canonical lead
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 09:45:59AM -0300, German Larrain M. wrote:
> Well, issues like this
> are the ones that motivate a fork (e.g. OpenOffice and LibreOffice) at one
> time or another. Is it necessary to reach that point? I don't think so. It
d
countless times in arguments with "anti-OSS people".
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 00:03:13 -0400
> From: nick rundy
> To: "ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com"
>
> Subject: EFF & Privacy; hopefully Ubuntu will listen to users?
> Message-ID:
> Con
26 matches
Mail list logo
