Clint Adams writes:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 03:17:20PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> It's important in order to make the project feel more welcoming and open.
> I bet that's truer than you think it is.
It's possible for it to be both true and ironic at the same time. :)
Also, part of what m
On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 03:17:20PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> It's important in order to make the project feel more welcoming and open.
I bet that's truer than you think it is.
Clint Adams writes:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 02:31:12PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I'm extremely sympathetic to the problem you're trying to solve, but I
>> think it's a fairly fundamental UI issue in how email works, and I'm
>> dubious that creating another list will help much.
> Right, wha
On Monday, July 18, 2016 08:58:53 PM Ole Streicher wrote:
> Scott Kitterman writes:
> > I do think the example of Ubuntu splitting ubuntu-devel into ubuntu-devel
> > and ubuntu-devel-discuss may be a relevant data point. As an active
> > participant in Ubuntu development both before and after the
On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 02:31:12PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I'm extremely sympathetic to the problem you're trying to solve, but I
> think it's a fairly fundamental UI issue in how email works, and I'm
> dubious that creating another list will help much.
Right, what we need is a way of punishi
Ian Jackson writes:
> I think that such a list would provide an opportunity for discussions
> to move out of -private, which is of course an even bigger barrier to
> participation.
I believe threads stay in -private long past the point of requiring
privacy, not because people are particularly en
On 18/07/16 21:22, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
> On 2016-07-18 18:21, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>> There are some things on -private that could be summarized with
>> statistics publicly, e.g. the reasons people give when they retire from
>> the project (X% cited reason A, Y% cited reason B, ...)
>>
>> I
On 2016-07-18 18:21, Daniel Pocock wrote:
There are some things on -private that could be summarized with
statistics publicly, e.g. the reasons people give when they retire from
the project (X% cited reason A, Y% cited reason B, ...)
Is there any consensus on whether deriving anonymous statistic
Scott Kitterman writes:
> I do think the example of Ubuntu splitting ubuntu-devel into ubuntu-devel and
> ubuntu-devel-discuss may be a relevant data point. As an active participant
> in Ubuntu development both before and after the split I paid attention to it
> (and remained subscribed to ubu
On Monday, July 18, 2016 07:53:23 PM Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 05:46:46PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > In any case, with the renewed opposition here I'm certainly not going
> > to push this issue unless there are others who agree with me and
> > disagree with the views of
On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 05:46:46PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> In any case, with the renewed opposition here I'm certainly not going
> to push this issue unless there are others who agree with me and
> disagree with the views of others posted so far.
I agree what you proposed would be an interesti
There are some things on -private that could be summarized with
statistics publicly, e.g. the reasons people give when they retire from
the project (X% cited reason A, Y% cited reason B, ...)
Is there any consensus on whether deriving anonymous statistics from
debian-private is acceptable?
Rega
I was at a small party drinking perhaps too much port and I proposed
in jest a scheme which now, even though I'm sober, seems like it
might actually be a good idea:
Suppose we instituted a rule that every posting to debian-private had
to have, in its Subject line, exactly one subject like tag like
Lars Wirzenius writes ("Re: Publicly-readable list for only DDs and DMs to post
to"):
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 01:47:19PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > We also need to understand why people use -private when perhaps they
> > ought not. One reason is that -private has a better signal to noise
> >
Following is an email that I sent to Tomas Matejicek (SLAX) just minutes ago.
After that I clicked “blog” on their site. Please read the following. There is
a very big donation here.
Thank you for slax. I'm an old ex-computer engineer and I used some Linux
distributions occasionally and the expe
Remember implies it's not happening still
(not that anyone on this thread is guilty of this)
Paul
On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 05:19:21PM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
>> I'm sorry to be so negative, but I'm afraid I have to say that I
>> obje
On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 10:35:06AM -0400, Paul R. Tagliamonte wrote:
> Remember implies it's not happening still
while this is true, poisoning also not neccessarily goes away by itself.
--
cheers,
Holger
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 05:19:21PM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> I'm sorry to be so negative, but I'm afraid I have to say that I
> object to the suggestion of creating a members-only mailing list. It
> creates another barrier to participation in Debian at a time when we
> should be tearing them d
On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 01:47:19PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> We also need to understand why people use -private when perhaps they
> ought not. One reason is that -private has a better signal to noise
> ratio than -devel or -project, and therefore people pay more attention
> to it.
I'm sorry to
* Ian Jackson , 2016-07-18, 13:47:
One reason is that -private has a better signal to noise ratio than
-devel or -project, and therefore people pay more attention to it.
The only @lists.d.o mailing lists I know that have worse signal-to-noise
ratio than -private are -security and -user.
If y
tl;dr:
pls can we create debian-members@l.d.o with posting acceptance rules
copied from debian-devel-announce[1] and subscriber list maintained in
sync with debian-private.
(Reply-to set to -project.)
We've been having a good conversation on -vote about the
declassification of -private. W
21 matches
Mail list logo
