Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Bernd Zeimetz (26/07/2009):
>> See above. Also: There're a lot of teams where outsiders can help and
>> earn trust without being able to break things.
>
> Do you mean people like Simon Paillard? With contributions in l10n,
> i18n, www, and mirror domains?
Yes.
--
Bern
Bernd Zeimetz (26/07/2009):
> See above. Also: There're a lot of teams where outsiders can help and
> earn trust without being able to break things.
Do you mean people like Simon Paillard? With contributions in l10n,
i18n, www, and mirror domains?
If you didn't, I (at the very least) do.
Mraw,
Steve Langasek wrote:
>> The infrastructure is essential for our distribution, same for
>> documentations an translations. I can't see a reason why such people
>> should not be able to become DDs.
>
> Because it implies a professional "priest caste" separate from the
> developers who will inevitab
la, 2009-07-25 kello 09:16 -0500, Manoj Srivastava kirjoitti:
> You are making the assumption that the authors reaction to "Bad"
> is less negative than the reaction to "Silly". While this is
> subjective, I do not think it is without contention:
My hasty re-wording has now given the wro
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 05:34:19PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 11:52:11PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> >> But I know that there are/will be DDs which do infrastructure stuff only,
> >> and
> >> rarely upload packages. Such DDs should never be re
Hello,
On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 01:00:52PM +0200, Ola Sandbu wrote:
> I see that Debian is a US registered organization, and then have to obey the
> laws for that country.
> The reason for my question is because I could not find any information
> related to United States embargo regulations at the
On Sat, Jul 25 2009, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> For example, in the specific case under discussion, the criticism might
> have been expressed something like this instead:
>
> I think this is a bad idea. It creates extra work for
> developers
You are making the assumption tha
la, 2009-07-25 kello 23:12 +1000, Ben Finney kirjoitti:
> If what remains is an attack upon an *idea*, so be it; ideas don't have
> feelings and are not automatically deserving of respect or politeness.
> “This is a silly idea” attacks no-one and is impolite to no-one. Let
> those who support the i
MJ Ray writes:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Calling a daft idea silly is being rude now?
>
> Not necessarily (it depends how one phrases it), but being rude is one
> way of being "not overly genteel" (as the earlier message advocated).
> I feel one shouldn't discourage politeness here.
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 24 2009, MJ Ray wrote:
> > [...] the project should remain polite even in the
> > face of really daft ideas (like the 3017th report that our website CSS
> > is invalid just because the W3C validator is incomplete).
>
> Calling a daft idea silly is bein
10 matches
Mail list logo
