On Dec 20 2019, Martina Ferrari wrote:
> Do people actually care about making Debian a welcoming place for
> minorities? Then speak up, take risks, or stop pretending you
> care. And I don't mean sending requests to listmaster, I mean putting
> your body and privilege in the front line.
Even thou
On Jul 03 2019, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> In this gay pride month discussion what is politically correct for
> people in the US is considered offensive by people in Germany, and
> what would be considered politically correct by Germans would be
> considered offensive by people in the US.
I would pre
On May 11 2017, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Nikolaus Rath writes:
>> On May 10 2017, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
>>> and no conclusions should ever be drawn from it?
>
>> I don't think anyone has said that.
>
> Quoting from the originally proposed wiki page:
>
&g
On May 10 2017, Russ Allbery wrote:
> "Dr. Bas Wijnen" writes:
>> On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 11:51:23PM +, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
>>> I think it's a horrible idea. One of the major draws of Debian is that
>>> we are all here for our own reasons. I don't judge your motivations
>>> and you don
On Feb 16 2015, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> I haven't seen any followup from the tech ctte on some of the disucssion from
>> Dec about improving the way the ctte approaches requests, cf
>>
>> https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2014/12/msg00050.html
>> https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2014/12/ms
Christian Kastner writes:
> On 2015-02-12 21:11, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Christian Kastner writes:
>>
>>> And I maintain that those people cannot be trusted with unrestricted
>>> upload rights to the archive. That person-noone-has-ever-met but
>>> occasionally-prepares-and-uploads-packages could
Nikolaus Rath writes:
> I think that's a pretty weak argument. Even if you assume that a
> theoretical perpetrator originally joined Debian with good intentions
> (i.e., without using a faked id in the first place), and that you are
> actually able to sue in the relevant country,
Christian Kastner writes:
> On 2015-02-12 18:20, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
>> Christian Kastner writes:
> On 2015-02-11 20:17, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
>>>>> In other words: just because I'm sure about someone's
>>>>> legal name, I wouldn't trust
Steve Langasek writes:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 11:17:44AM -0800, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
>> I'm a little confused about the need to meet in-person to get a
>> signature that's acceptable for the Debian keyring.
>
>> I believe that Debian packages are signed on
Christian Kastner writes:
> On 2015-02-11 20:17, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
>> In other words: just because I'm sure about someone's
>> legal name, I wouldn't trust him to run code on my computer. But if
>> someone has been contributing to Debian for 5 years with
Sam Hartman writes:
>>>>>> "Nikolaus" == Nikolaus Rath writes:
> Nikolaus> However, it seems to me that meeting someone in person
> Nikolaus> isn't actually verifying the relevant identity here. My
> Nikolaus> trust in a Debian dev
Russell Stuart writes:
> On Thu, 2015-02-12 at 07:15 +, Philip Hands wrote:
>> You've managed to spectacularly miss my point.
>>
>> If one insists on face-to-face meetings, there is a moderate chance that
>> someone is going to notice that the same person is attempting to create
>> a new pers
Hello,
I'm a little confused about the need to meet in-person to get a
signature that's acceptable for the Debian keyring.
I believe that Debian packages are signed on upload to ensure that they
have been prepared by a Debian Developer, because Debian Developers are
assumed to be trustworthy.
Ho
Daniel Pocock writes:
> On 11/03/14 20:47, Neil McGovern wrote:
>> On 11 Mar 2014, at 18:20, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>>> There is some ongoing discussion (on debian-legal) about whether the FTP
>>> masters will accept a particular package
>> For those who weren’t around 10 years ago, I would suggest
Andreas Barth writes:
> * Paul Tagliamonte (paul...@debian.org) [140302 19:02]:
>> On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 05:55:14PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
>> > Huh? Ian explicitly says, as does the text itself, that this proposed
>> > GR *adopts* the TC decision on the default init system. It doesn't
>> >
Russ Allbery writes:
> "Didier 'OdyX' Raboud" writes:
>> Le dimanche, 19 janvier 2014, 12.39:01 Ian Jackson a écrit :
>
>>> I agree. I think that would be quite bad. We could explicitly state
>>> in our TC resolution that the TC decision can be vacated by General
>>> Resolution on a simple majo
Norbert Preining writes:
> On Do, 28 Nov 2013, Brian Gupta wrote:
>> but I'll leave you with a quote from one of my favorite authors, which
>> may help put things in perspective.:
> [...]
>> Which made me oddly happy. I started imagining a world in which we
>> replaced the phrase “politica
Tollef Fog Heen writes:
>> 1) Privacy concerns: Debian would deliver much more data to business
>> companies than necessary. Keep in mind that personalized data is one
>> of the most valuable things to data miners. Currently I choose one
>> mirror site to pull my packages from. I can freely choose
Venture Communism writes:
> So let's get this straight.
>
> Step 1) Ask APT people if it belongs in APT
>
> Get told to go to debian-project list
>
> Step 2) Ask debian-project list if can put in APT
>
> Get told doesn't belong in APT
>
> Step 3) Fix proposal so it's not in APT, goes upstream as a
Russ Allbery writes:
> Some of us (myself definitely included) are involved in free software
> precisely *because* we're strongly anti-capitalist, anti-marketing, and
> firmly opposed to the economic structures that dominate so much of the
> rest of life. If your plea is for distributions to act
Paul Wise writes:
> I am very concerned about motivations of Debian project volunteers
> being distorted by money so I would suggest only allowing donations to
> Debian as a whole or directly to individual upstream projects.
I agree. It would add a whole new dimension to NMU'ing, orphaning,
adopt
Don Armstrong writes:
>> I'm /not/ asking to know who got a "penalty flag" (I don't need to
>> know) -- but I and others /do/ have a need to know if those exist
>> and what they are. The only reason I've been looking at past events
>> was to /infer/ what penalties exist due to a lack of informatio
Ian Jackson writes:
>> From the point of view of the bug reporter, the message the DD has
>> sent (whether intended or not) is "I'm not even going to dignify
>> this with a response. *click* " It's not /only/ this rudeness
>> that's the problem, though; the bug reporter has now been handed a
>> p
23 matches
Mail list logo
