On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 12:32:57AM +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote: > On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 11:17:57AM -0700, Andrew Sackville-West wrote: > > > > I agree the list is much "cleaner" now, but, with a few exceptions, the > > > big OT threads have been much fun. > > > > so, with all due respect and being genuinely curious, you seem to be a > > proponent of debian-ot. Can I ask why? (note that I'm not diggin > > through the archives ATM, so if I've mischaracterised you, I > > apologise.) > > You're right, I beat Joey Schulze (the other Joey) by 12 days at > proposing a debian-offtopic list (#425439 and #427218). > > As I just said above, I think (most of) the OT threads are fun and they > are also bringing the community together. A debian-offtopic list would > be the best way of having all those offtopic discussions inside the > debian project, but without disturbing the "normal" d-u (or d-d, ... , > whatever) traffic (and no, debian-curiosa is *not* suited). > > ... looking at the "Etch + USB Modem -- Supported?" thread I'm guessing > you guys (at least you and Ron) are also missing those.
yeah, sorry I spelled your name wrong there. But since Celejar has logged my claim to be done with that thread, I can't properly issue a correction. I'm still up in the air about d-ot (heh. that's a good one, d.o.t.) as I don't think its actually practical to implement. For example, how would one go about moving that USB^h^h^hVituperations thread over to d.o.t. and then moving it back when it veers back on-topic. its a difficult social problem for which there are few if any technological solutions... A
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
