On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 10:27:08AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> it's also possible to raise a variety of invalid concerns
> in ways that require responses
> their comments are only influential in so far as they persuade developers.
These statements apply to both DD's and non-DD's.
--Adam
--
A
On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 03:11:42PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote:
> If people who aren't members are raising valid concerns that need to be
> addressed before development can proceed, we shouldn't reject that input on
> the basis of membership and call it "blocking development".
Right. But it's also p
On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 03:11:42PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote:
> Likewise, there are plenty of DD's whose S/N ratio is pretty high, and are
(pretty low, that is..)
--Adam
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 03:02:03PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Personally, I think non-DDs participating is great; the only problem
> comes when that starts becoming a way for people who aren't members
> of the project to block development; which can happen either by people
> spending time arguin
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I suspect that if it were confined to Debian developers, this problem
> would be much reduced. Not eliminated, but reduced.
On what is that suspicion based?
I disagree. Some of the worst noiseboxes were DDs and some of the
best moderators weren't. Rest
Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The d-l list has a problem which is shared by many Debian mailing
> lists (including debian-vote and debian-devel, and I'm sure it's not
> limited to them) which is that far too many people subscribe to the
> "last post wins" school of debate. People don't listen
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 10:52:45AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > However, I *do* believe that d-l is a cesspit, and I for one am very
> > glad that in its current incarnation, it is not at all binding and has
> > no value other than being a deba
On 6/12/06, Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The d-l list has a problem which is shared by many Debian mailing
lists (including debian-vote and debian-devel, and I'm sure it's not
limited to them) which is that far too many people subscribe to the
"last post wins" school of debate. People
Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> However, I *do* believe that d-l is a cesspit, and I for one am very
> glad that in its current incarnation, it is not at all binding and has
> no value other than being a debating socity --- a debating socity that
> I am very glad that I can avoid, thank
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 09:35:32AM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> This is one of the most common accusations leveled against d-l: that the
> membership of d-l is skewed and not representative of Debian as a whole.
> If that's true there's not much d-l can do about it, of course, and the
> whole pro
"Ian Jackson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jeremy Hankins writes ("Non-DD's in debian-legal"):
I'm not sure I understand this part, though. Do you think that folks
like myself, who are not DD's, should not participate
Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jeremy Hankins writes ("Non-DD's in debian-legal"):
>> I'm not sure I understand this part, though. Do you think that folks
>> like myself, who are not DD's, should not participate in the discussions
&g
Le mercredi 07 juin 2006 à 12:18 +0100, Ian Jackson a écrit :
> Jeremy Hankins writes ("Non-DD's in debian-legal"):
> > I'm not sure I understand this part, though. Do you think that folks
> > like myself, who are not DD's, should not participate in the
Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [...] as we've just seen, people (both people from debian-legal and
> elsewhere) do seem to think that debian-legal is or ought to be where
> these decisions are taken.
Who did that? I must have missed a few posts.
FWIW, I think that debian-legal is a useful res
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:18:04PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Jeremy Hankins writes ("Non-DD's in debian-legal"):
> > I'm not sure I understand this part, though. Do you think that folks
> > like myself, who are not DD's, should not participate in the dis
Jeremy Hankins writes ("Non-DD's in debian-legal"):
> I'm not sure I understand this part, though. Do you think that folks
> like myself, who are not DD's, should not participate in the discussions
> on d-l?
Actually, I think they should not participate, in ge
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, no, that's not actually true. Debian developers get a say in
> whatever they're responsible for. Whether that whatever is a bunch of
> packages on which they're listed as Maintainer, or a port they've been
> maintaining for a few years, or a prog
Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> It has happened in the past that the DPL asked a DD and a NM to make
> together a team to deal with a problematic license and to give together
> official Debian statements. [...]
Whatever happened to that? July's coming, bringing a new FDL draft,
if the news re
* Adeodato Simó ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060606 11:54]:
> No, it does not break. Analyzing software licensing does in fact not
> require any developer privileges _at all_, in the same measure _preparing_
> a full set of GNOME packages does not, either. But the same way those
> packages don't become "of
* Jeremy Hankins [Mon, 05 Jun 2006 20:04:56 -0400]:
> > The thing is that, no matter how much they work and no matter how high
> > quality their packages are, at the end it _HAS_ to be a Debian Developer
> > the one to sign the .changes file. Credit and acknowledgement will go
> > to the non-devel
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Starting with "What is key for Debian" makes it sound like a policy
> statement on behalf of Debian, and "Just fix the license" could then be
> interpreted as a demand from Debian that Sun alter the license.
If Sun believe things from random people that easi
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 01:33:46AM -0400, Travis Crump wrote:
> David Nusinow wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 08:04:56PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> >> I'm afraid I don't understand the fear here. What would it mean for d-l
> >> to become gnome.alioth.debian.org in your example?
> >
> > Non
On Tue, 06 Jun 2006, David Nusinow wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 08:04:56PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> > I'm afraid I don't understand the fear here. What would it mean for d-l
> > to become gnome.alioth.debian.org in your example?
>
> Non-developers, no matter how much they love Free Soft
David Nusinow wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 08:04:56PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>> I'm afraid I don't understand the fear here. What would it mean for d-l
>> to become gnome.alioth.debian.org in your example?
>
> Non-developers, no matter how much they love Free Software and Debian,
> don'
On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 08:04:56PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> I'm afraid I don't understand the fear here. What would it mean for d-l
> to become gnome.alioth.debian.org in your example?
Non-developers, no matter how much they love Free Software and Debian,
don't get to decide on the policies
Adeodato Simó <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So let's make an analogy. Imagine one day, the bulk of Debian Developers
> stop being interested in maintaining GNOME (or KDE, if you wish). The
> packages begin to rot, become obsolete, uninstallable, etc. Then, a group
> of non-developers who care abou
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Starting with "What is key for Debian" makes it sound like a policy
> statement on behalf of Debian, and "Just fix the license" could then
> be interpreted as a demand from Debian that Sun alter the license. In
> that context, it seems reasonable to po
* Jeremy Hankins [Mon, 05 Jun 2006 09:31:19 -0400]:
> My opinion, for what it's worth, is that most DD's, despite occasionally
> having strong opinions on licensing ("*This* license is _free_, @#$^!")
> are totally uninterested in taking the time to sort through the
> nitpicking arguments about la
George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I do not believe that it is feasible/useful/possible to clarify every single
> statement whether stated by an official DD ... It is addressee job to check
> that out if they are interested in. If the addressee is not capable to check
> official db.deb
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not sure I understand this part, though. Do you think that folks
> like myself, who are not DD's, should not participate in the discussions
> on d-l? Do you think that those of us who are not DD's should put a
> disclaimer (IANADD) on every message
Disclaimer: I am not a DD, nor in the n-m queue. I'm also
re-crossposting to debian-devel, because I don't think this discussion
could usefully be had on debian-legal -- and it's not a licensing issue
anyway.
Anthony Towns writes:
> I don't believe that saying someone isn't a developer is conte
31 matches
Mail list logo
