I think you are right there is not much left to be said. However, it is
comforting to note that this one ugly thread is the only I have seen in
all my time on the Debian lists. Looked at in that light it's sort of
reassuring. If bad threads are so incidental, I can comfortably ignore
them. An
Hi,
I think that this topic has reached the end of it's utility
(much as I like the discourse). I think we are beginning to repeat
ourselves. In concluding my participation on this thread, I have this
to add:
a) The list is not a place where the first amendment to the US
constitut
On 24 Oct 1997, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
> >>"Kai" == Kai Henningsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Kai> So then here's a proposal for a policy:
>
> Kai> If a list participant (who is otherwise eligible for the list,
> Kai> like being a project member if the list is debian-private)
> Kai>
Look, why don't you just pack your bags and start your _own_ thing. As you
know it all, the end product would surely be better, and user and developers
all over the planet would gladly follow you.
But in the meantime, give us some peace and quiet in what you believe to be a
copletely misguided,
On Thu, 23 Oct 97 10:27 PDT, Bruce Perens wrote:
>From: Andreas Jellinghaus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> rules don't work very well, because you have no punishment, if someone
>> breaks the rules.
>
>OK. Let me restate the problem.
>
>I want guidelines for:
>
> 1. Digesting an individual's posting
On Fri, 24 Oct 1997 14:18:42 +0200 (CEST), Joost Kooij wrote:
>> In other words Bruce needs a way to justify stifiling people that endanger
>> his
>> complete domination of the Debian project.
>>
>> I can see no other reason for this policy as the very *RARE* times their is
>> any
>> noise o
On Thu, 23 Oct 97 23:33 PDT, Bruce Perens wrote:
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Jackson)
>> You might also find that becoming a developer would enhance your credibility.
>
>There's a little trust issue standing in the way of that, I fear.
Let me clarify this for everyone. Bruce has made it clear t
On Thu, 23 Oct 1997 09:00:14 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>: I want to check for opinions one more time before abandoning them.
>: If we do that, disrespectful language will be allowed, and obscentity
>: will be allowed. Is this really what people want?
>
>No.
I want the gestpo regulating the
On Fri, 24 Oct 1997 00:49:56 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
>Dave Cinege:
>> In other words Bruce needs a way to justify stifiling people that
>> endanger his complete domination of the Debian project.
>>
>> I can see no other reason for this policy as the very *RARE* times
>> their is any noise on th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Manoj Srivastava) wrote on 24.10.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >>"Kai" == Kai Henningsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Kai>> So then here's a proposal for a policy:
Kai>> If a list participant (who is otherwise eligible for the list,
Kai>> like being a project member if the list
Hi,
>>"Kai" == Kai Henningsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Kai> So then here's a proposal for a policy:
Kai> If a list participant (who is otherwise eligible for the list,
Kai> like being a project member if the list is debian-private)
Kai> undertakes an action that seriously endangers the existen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Manoj Srivastava) wrote on 24.10.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >>"Joost" == Joost Kooij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Joost> I agree that indeed only very, very occasionally the
> Joost> mailinglists get disturbed in a way that ought to call for
> Joost> measures. So rarely in
> To the rest of the list: We've been seeing a fair amount of noise
> recently, whether of the kind quoted above, or miscellaneous user
> questions to debian-devel (of which we've had a couple recently), or
> whatever.
>
> I propose that if we get much more we close the debian-policy and
> debian
On 24 Oct 1997, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Joost> The last time there was an issue, I actually enjoyed the fun to
> Joost> read digests and I frankly cannot imagine a situation where
> Joost> stronger action is needed ( except maybe for people posting
> Joost> their kernels - I wouldn't want a dige
Hi,
>>"Joost" == Joost Kooij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Joost> I agree that indeed only very, very occasionally the
Joost> mailinglists get disturbed in a way that ought to call for
Joost> measures. So rarely in fact that all too much emphasis on
Joost> possible measures might be a bigger disturb
Quoting Kai's message you deleted the wrong parts of the message, thus
putting in Bruce's pen what I wrote.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [Fabrizio wrote:]
> > > I have noticed some interesting ideas in some messages, but their
> > > language convinced me that they were not worth of my attention.
>
Kai Henningsen wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Fabrizio Polacco) wrote on 23.10.97:
>
> > Disrespectful language and obscentity disqualify only those that use
> > them. Ignoring them is the right thing to do, IMO.
>
> IMO, it depends entirely on the situation.
Yes, it's true and I agree.
I suppo
On Thu, 23 Oct 1997, Dave Cinege wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Oct 97 10:27 PDT, Bruce Perens wrote:
>
> >OK. Let me restate the problem.
> >
> >I want guidelines for:
> >
> > 1. Digesting an individual's postings.
> > 2. Placing an individual on moderation.
> > 3. Entirely blocking an individu
|"Ronald> The real question is: do we want rules or do we trust that
|"Ronald> everyone will behave as mature individuals.
|"
|" I think that past experience shows that peope can't be
|" expected to behave as mature individulas, at least not all people,
|" all of the time.
That's what I said
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Jackson)
> You might also find that becoming a developer would enhance your credibility.
There's a little trust issue standing in the way of that, I fear.
Bruce
--
Can you get your operating system fixed when you need it?
Linux - the supportable operating sys
We recently had some conversation on rules of discourse for the mailing
lists. At that time, discussion by most developers was strongly against
them. Only myself and two other people spoke out for them at all.
I want to check for opinions one more time before abandoning them.
If we do that, disres
|"I want to check for opinions one more time before abandoning them.
|"If we do that, disrespectful language will be allowed, and obscentity
|"will be allowed. Is this really what people want?
That I find to be something I really don't want on mailinglists - leading
questions. Of course people don
Bruce Perens wrote:
>
> We recently had some conversation on rules of discourse for the
> mailing lists. At that time, discussion by most developers was
> strongly against them. Only myself and two other people spoke out
> for them at all.
>
> I want to check for opinions one more time before aba
From: Ronald van Loon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> O, btw, without meaning to be disrespectful to you, but how would you have
> liked it if I had started this with: "Do we really want a project leader
> who asks leading questions ?
My job is to lead the developers to a consensus. Stirring up discussion i
Hi,
>>"Ronald" == Ronald van Loon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ronald> The real question is: do we want rules or do we trust that
Ronald> everyone will behave as mature individuals.
I think that past experience shows that peope can't be
expected to behave as mature individulas, at least n
Dave Cinege:
> In other words Bruce needs a way to justify stifiling people that
> endanger his complete domination of the Debian project.
>
> I can see no other reason for this policy as the very *RARE* times
> their is any noise on the mailing lists it has been about that.
Dave, please try not
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Fabrizio Polacco) wrote on 23.10.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Bruce Perens wrote:
> >
> > We recently had some conversation on rules of discourse for the
> > mailing lists. At that time, discussion by most developers was
> > strongly against them. Only myself and two other peop
It's all very well having `rules', but this is IMO missing the real
question.
If people on the mailing lists get to the point where they're calling
each other names then something has gone wrong. Pointing one or both
at the `rules' and banning them for a bit doesn't seem like a solution
to the pr
From: Andreas Jellinghaus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> rules don't work very well, because you have no punishment, if someone
> breaks the rules.
OK. Let me restate the problem.
I want guidelines for:
1. Digesting an individual's postings.
2. Placing an individual on moderation.
On Thu, 23 Oct 1997 09:00:14 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>: I want to check for opinions one more time before abandoning them.
>: If we do that, disrespectful language will be allowed, and obscentity
>: will be allowed. Is this really what people want?
>
>No.
I want the gestpo regulating the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Manoj Srivastava) wrote on 23.10.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >>"Ronald" == Ronald van Loon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Ronald> The real question is: do we want rules or do we trust that
> Ronald> everyone will behave as mature individuals.
>
> I think that past exper
On 23 Oct 1997, Kai Henningsen wrote:
> > Bruce Perens wrote:
> >
> > Disrespectful language and obscentity disqualify only those that use
> > them. Ignoring them is the right thing to do, IMO.
>
> IMO, it depends entirely on the situation. I've seen some "disrespectful
> language and obscentit
On Wed 22 Oct 1997, Bruce Perens wrote:
> We recently had some conversation on rules of discourse for the mailing
> lists. At that time, discussion by most developers was strongly against
> them. Only myself and two other people spoke out for them at all.
>
> I want to check for opinions one more
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
: We recently had some conversation on rules of discourse for the mailing
: lists. At that time, discussion by most developers was strongly against
: them. Only myself and two other people spoke out for them at all.
I had the opposite impression and was wa
On Thu, 23 Oct 97 10:27 PDT, Bruce Perens wrote:
>From: Andreas Jellinghaus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> rules don't work very well, because you have no punishment, if someone
>> breaks the rules.
>
>OK. Let me restate the problem.
>
>I want guidelines for:
>
> 1. Digesting an individual's posting
35 matches
Mail list logo
