* Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [021017 00:51]:
> > In particular, I note that you seem to be grinding your axe about the
> > issue from Bug#97671.
>
> No, you do me a disservice. That was not Debian's first severity war
> and it probably won't be the last.
>
For new Developers the text
[Ian: I subscribe to this list; PLEASE do not CC me on replies.]
On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 09:58:16PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> How about `shouting match' ?
Works for me.
> > 5) I appreciate your willingness to delete the sentence about "go away
> > and grow up", but more important to me is the
Here's my latest draft, incorporating all the comments I've seen so
far (when I agreed).
DISPUTES BETWEEN DEVELOPERS
A *DRAFT* joint recommendation of the the Technical Committee, the
Project Leader and the Bug Tracking System Administrators.
1. Motivation
Debian is a very
Branden Robinson writes ("Re: Disputes between developers - draft guidelines"):
...
> 4) "Slanging match" may be a little too colloquial for a formal
> document with an international audience.
How about `shouting match' ?
> 5) I appreciate your willingness to
Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: Disputes between developers - draft guidelines"):
> Man, talk about being talked down to.
You're absolutely right, it's a very patronising document. But I
think that's unavoidable given the content, and I think we do need the
content be
(I've taken leader@ and debian-ctte@ off the CC list. I hope that
meets with people's approval. If not, or if [EMAIL PROTECTED] wants out too,
please let me know.)
Adam Heath writes ("Re: Disputes between developers - draft guidelines"):
> I have been seen in public r
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 12:57:39AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> As author I have no objection to you quoting (or indeed forwarding)
> that private mail of mine anywhere. It's not secret.
Okay.
> As a reader of -project I might object to you posting it on the
> grounds that I think it might be a d
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 06:15:01PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 08:36:07PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 12:25:09AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > Anyone considering voting for me, don't, because none of you moronic
> > > pieces
> > > o
Branden Robinson writes ("Re: Disputes between developers - draft guidelines"):
> I'm not interested in having a private discussion about public issues;
> I'll reply to your points on -project without quoting your private
> message.
I don't have time right now t
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 08:36:07PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 12:25:09AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Anyone considering voting for me, don't, because none of you moronic pieces
> > of shit are worthy of my leadership.
[...]
> > What!? That is by far the dumbest f
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 12:25:09AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> 1) "flamage" appears in The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing and the
> Jargon file; "flameage" appears in neither. It might be best to avoid
> this word altogether and substitute something like "emotional
> rhetoric".
Flames
At Thu, 17 Oct 2002 00:25:09 -0500,
Branden Robinson wrote:
> 8) I was unaware that RFC 1738[2] had been obsoleted. Could you please
> advise me as to which RFC supersedes it?
It's not obsoleted, but it's updated by RFC1808, RFC2368 and RFC2396
RFC1808 - Relative Uniform Resource Locators
RFC
>>"Ian" == Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ian> I disapprove of the `wontfix' tag, in principle. It seems to me that
Ian> there are three possible relevant situations:
Ian> * There is a deficiency in the package, but perhaps the maintainer
Ian> does not have time or expertise t
>>"Ian" == Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi,
Man, talk about being talked down to.
Ian> DISPUTES BETWEEN DEVELOPERS
Ian> A *DRAFT* joint recommendation of the the Technical Committee, the
Ian> Project Leader and the Bug Tracking System Administrators.
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Ian Jackson wrote:
> DISPUTES BETWEEN DEVELOPERS
>
> A *DRAFT* joint recommendation of the the Technical Committee, the
> Project Leader and the Bug Tracking System Administrators.
Good work from you and also Branden's corrections.
Once the document is ready
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 12:38:13AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I'm not sure the issue of severities needs dealing with explicitly
> here.
It needs to be dealt with somewhere, and the Technical Committee has
explicitly punted on resolving such disputes.
If we don't discuss the issue in this docume
[in reply to a private message of iwj's that discusses nothing in
confidence]
So that I do not quote Ian's private mail to me, I will simply enumerate
the substance of the issues raised.
0) In a document that is supposed to speak for a large collective, I
think it is important to minimize the num
Before I comment on any of the actual points below, I'd like to make some
statements first.
I have been seen in public reopening bugs that have been incorrectly closed by
bad changelog entries. I have done this with my [EMAIL PROTECTED] hat on.
However,
this wrong. I still feel very strongly o
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 12:12:11AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I'll respond in detail in private mail, to avoid the public discussion
> getting bogged down in details so early on.
I'm not interested in having a private discussion about public issues;
I'll reply to your points on -project without q
Branden Robinson writes ("Re: Disputes between developers - draft guidelines"):
> 6. Bug report etiquette
>
> Sometimes bugs are reported inappropriately; likewise, sometimes
> -maintainers close bug reports inappropriately. Bug reports are `todo
> -list' ite
Branden Robinson writes ("Re: Disputes between developers - draft guidelines"):
> Overall, it looks great. Thanks for working on this.
>
> I have a few suggestions, raging from stylistic and spelling corrections
> to the more substantive, reflecting my own observations
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 09:07:19PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I've noticed, mainly due to getting closer to disputes due to greater
> tech-ctte activity, that some disputes are getting really quite
> dysfunctional. So, I wrote the draft below. Let me know what you
> think. If people like it we
I've noticed, mainly due to getting closer to disputes due to greater
tech-ctte activity, that some disputes are getting really quite
dysfunctional. So, I wrote the draft below. Let me know what you
think. If people like it we can post it to d-d-a and I'll write it up
for a web page, or we can p
23 matches
Mail list logo
