Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme

2000-08-04 Thread Seth Cohn
At 11:09 PM 08/04/2000 +0200, Detlev Zundel wrote: >And as a side note, I've heard that people were able to do stuff for >the GNU project without depositing urine samples, but then again the >GNU project is probably not as respectable as Debian. Urine, blood, sweat or tears... almost any bodily f

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

2000-08-04 Thread William Ono
On Fri, Aug 04, 2000 at 02:03:37PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > When I submitted a scan of my Driver's License in early 1998, I used xpaint > or the gimp or something to place black "censorship" rectangles over my > actual driver's license number and social security number. This was > regarde

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

2000-08-04 Thread Oliver M . Bolzer
On Fri, Aug 04, 2000 at 02:03:37PM -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote... > On Thu, Aug 03, 2000 at 06:08:36PM +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote: > When I submitted a scan of my Driver's License in early 1998, I used xpaint > or the gimp or something to place black "censorship" rectangle

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fearthe new maintainer process)

2000-08-04 Thread Chris Pimlott
On Fri, 4 Aug 2000, Jim Ziegler wrote: > So out with Kernigan and Ritchie, they had no scanners so could not have > had anything to contribute. (Please be sure to note that this is a > comment on the arrogance of the assumption that one who does not have > convienent access to the latest techno

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

2000-08-04 Thread Detlev Zundel
Hi, I am nearly sorry to lengthen this thread, but I stumbled about an assumption that I believe is fundamental and _not_ true: The keyboard of Gopal Narayanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think some sort of traceability is good. As debian maintainers, we > can upload packages. If I am malici

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

2000-08-04 Thread Jim Ziegler
On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 06:58:40PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote: > So far, to my knowledge, not one applicant has refused to supply such > information. If one such example exists, I would argue that this clause > should, in fact, be executed, rejecting such applications, simply because > there are s

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

2000-08-04 Thread Jim Ziegler
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 04:05:06PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote: > It comes down to: Can you do "normal" things that may be required by the > task at hand? Scanning a passport seems to be a reasonable skill to > require of incoming members. Isn't it? > > > No. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Ziegler

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

2000-08-04 Thread Jim Ziegler
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 03:28:28PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote: > > Because of the large numbers of applicants that we have to process every > day, just to stay ahead of the incomming flood, we should be looking for > ways to make rejection of an applicant easier, not harder. We can't > possibly ta

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

2000-08-04 Thread Jim Ziegler
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 02:32:01PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote: > On Mon, 31 Jul 2000, Mark Brown wrote: > > For me, it would be harder to provide a recent photo, that it would be to > provide a copy of my passport, so I appologize if I'm a bit incredulous > about the difficulties of providing "ade

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

2000-08-04 Thread Jim Ziegler
On Mon, Jul 31, 2000 at 03:06:36PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote: > > I would also ask: Do we want to accept people as members who are unwilling > to show us their face? > > Obvoiusly I don't think so ;-) > Send me a scanner and I'll send you a picture. Or send me the money to buy one. -- [E

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

2000-08-04 Thread Branden Robinson
On Thu, Aug 03, 2000 at 06:08:36PM +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote: > Dale Scheetz writes: > > > I just can't understand the reluctance to satisfy this requirement except > > that it is viewed by some as being too hard. I cannot, for the life of me, > > You've not been reading my emails then. I do

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fe

2000-08-04 Thread Matthew Vernon
Jim Westveer writes: > > On 03-Aug-2000 Matthew Vernon wrote: > > Dale Scheetz writes: > > > > > I just can't understand the reluctance to satisfy this requirement > > except > > > that it is viewed by some as being too hard. I cannot, for the life of > > me, > > > > You've not bee

Another debian derived system - NIC (www.thinknic.com)

2000-08-04 Thread Seth Cohn
Larry Ellison's new company doing a 'thin client', the NIC (http://www.thinknic.com) has shipped the unit finally. I bought one weeks ago, got it the other day, and hacked up a bash shell on it the first night, and lo and behold, the OS is based on Debian. So it says in the kernel and boot among

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

2000-08-04 Thread Shane Wegner
On Thu, Aug 03, 2000 at 06:08:36PM +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote: > Dale Scheetz writes: > > > I just can't understand the reluctance to satisfy this requirement except > > that it is viewed by some as being too hard. I cannot, for the life of me, > > You've not been reading my emails then. I do