Gaudenz Steinlin dijo [Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 01:05:04PM +0100]:
> I'm not really comfortable with this. Not because I don't trust madduck,
> but because if the Project is in the process of reaching a decision
> about wheter to accept Bitcoins or not, we should not circumvent that.
> After all DebCon
On Sun, Feb 15, 2015, 13:05 Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
OTOH debian.ch has accepted donations in Bitcoin via BitPay in the past.
Maybe that's an option. Philipp Hug should know more about this.
Gaudenz
Yes, debian.ch has a bitpay account. They can instantly convert BTC to EUR
which is what we'r
also sprach Michael Banck [2015-02-15 14:11 +0100]:
> You know, there's a difference between "design it perfectly" and "just
> let our users send me money and trust me with it".
Of course there's a difference. And a middle-ground. My criticism is
that we often enough don't venture into that middl
On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 02:02:02PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> This was also voted down, I think. You know, typical
> Debian-we-need-to-design-it-perfectly-first-let's-not-make-a-move-before-that
> style.
You know, there's a difference between "design it perfectly" and "just
let our users send
also sprach Philipp Hug [2015-02-15 13:49 +0100]:
> The reason the process is stalled is not that we don't have experience.
> (E.g. using a static btc address to receive payments is IMO bad, better use
> individual adresses)
Other than privacy, what are the advantages. But yes, if it all gets
co
On Sun, Feb 15, 2015, 13:31 martin f krafft wrote:
Oh really? I thought this process was fully stalled, mainly because
we didn't have any experience; thus I thought this would actually
provide some data and experience, which can then later be used to
facilitate a decision on a project-wide basis
also sprach Philipp Hug [2015-02-15 13:17 +0100]:
> Yes, debian.ch has a bitpay account. They can instantly convert
> BTC to EUR which is what we're currently doing.
Can we get a DebConf15-specific address there? If so, please let me
know. I don't care how we do it, but I'd like to do it.
How d
also sprach Margarita Manterola [2015-02-15 09:37
+0100]:
> Yeah, personally I think 80 is already a high enough number. But if we
> see a lot more people signing up to sprints, we can discuss what we do
> (including asking for more beds, we can likely get more beds if we ask
> enough time in adv
also sprach Giacomo Catenazzi [2015-02-15 10:04 +0100]:
> Usually we were sending the two announces in parallel. (but
> I don’t remember discussions, so maybe it was only for technical
> reason)
The advantage of sending separate ones is "buzz", i.e. reminding
people and staying in their heads.
>
also sprach Gaudenz Steinlin [2015-02-15 13:05 +0100]:
> I'm not really comfortable with this. Not because I don't trust madduck,
> but because if the Project is in the process of reaching a decision
> about wheter to accept Bitcoins or not
Oh really? I thought this process was fully stalled, mai
martin f krafft writes:
> also sprach Richard Hartmann [2015-02-14 20:47
> +0100]:
>> DebConf e.V. is a Trusted Organization and madduck is a member. We
>> can delegate this to him officially.
>
> I would not do this, as the Project itself has not taken a position
> and a TO should probably not
> On 14 Feb 2015, at 19:21, Margarita Manterola
> wrote:
>
> Hey all,
>
> Summit is basically ready to open registrations (cate: please correct
> me if I'm wrong) and what we need now is:
I confirm: IMO we are ready.
> 1) The text for the call for papers / CFP+open reg announcement?
> I be
On 15 Feb 2015, at 09:00, martin f krafft wrote:
>
> also sprach René Mayorga [2015-02-15 01:07 +0100]:
>> I prefer the idea of two separate mails, but I will prefer to send the
>> CfP after the mail calling for registration.
>
> That seems illogical to me, especially since nothing forces us to
Hi,
On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 6:03 AM, Tassia Camoes Araujo wrote:
> What about orga arrival on the 8th, DebCamp arrival day on the 9th, than
> sprints from 10 to 14?
> Can I consider those dates for the call for sprints?
These dates sound good to me, yes.
> I'm afraid that number will raise if
also sprach René Mayorga [2015-02-15 01:07 +0100]:
> I prefer the idea of two separate mails, but I will prefer to send the
> CfP after the mail calling for registration.
That seems illogical to me, especially since nothing forces us to
actually announce any talks.
> If we aim to announce some "
15 matches
Mail list logo
