On 2022-10-13 Santiago Ruano Rincón wrote:
> Package: lists.debian.org
> Severity: wishlist
> Dear list masters and fellow Debian peers,
> I hereby would like to propose to create a mailing list for
> collaborative maintenance.
> Name: debian-collab-maint
> Rationale:
&
Package: lists.debian.org
Severity: wishlist
Dear list masters and fellow Debian peers,
I hereby would like to propose to create a mailing list for
collaborative maintenance.
Name: debian-collab-maint
Rationale:
El 13/10/22 a las 07:02, Tobias Frost escribió:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 04
On Mon, 19 Apr 2021, Phil Morrell wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 06, 2021 at 10:14:50PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > We could have a "debian/spending-ideas" if you want so that all DD have
> > write access by default. We could restrict access to issues for project
> > members (that automatically include
Now that the DPL voting is over, I'd like to ask Jonathan directly what
you think of this idea in the context of your plans for an Expenditure
policy? Could this fit alongside, help feed into it or is likely to be
made obsolete? The thread starts here:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2021/
Hi,
On Sun, 04 Apr 2021, Phil Morrell wrote:
> Please keep in mind that I'm proposing this list purely as a practical
> experiment, it does nothing that can't already be done elsewhere, and if
> it doesn't work out after say 6 months, then so be it. All I'm looking
> for is an indication that it w
Hi Raphaël, your feedback in particular is very much appreciated.
Please keep in mind that I'm proposing this list purely as a practical
experiment, it does nothing that can't already be done elsewhere, and if
it doesn't work out after say 6 months, then so be it. All I'm looking
for is an indicat
support of suggestions. debian-vote has proposals, low-bureaucracy
> seconders, and the Project Secretary validating signatures.
>
> I propose creating an experimental debian-spending mailing list based on
> the same rules to test this idea. The equivalent of the GR here would be
&
On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 05:21:47PM -0400, Kurt Meyer wrote:
> I realize that there is the New Packages in "Sid" page, but a mailing list
> would be more convenient in my opinion.
For the benefit of others, the hinted at page is:
https://packages.debian.org/unstable/newpkg
It
On Fri, Apr 02, 2021 at 06:18:40PM +0200, Geert Stappers wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 12:35:18AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 05:21:47PM -0400, Kurt Meyer wrote:
> > > I would like to suggest the start of two new mailing lists.
> > >
&
I've thought about what such a system could look like, perhaps signed
commits to a salsa project or a simple site like mentors. I came to the
conclusion that there's already a working system in place for counting
DD support of suggestions. debian-vote has proposals, low-bureaucracy
seconders,
On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 12:35:18AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 05:21:47PM -0400, Kurt Meyer wrote:
> > I would like to suggest the start of two new mailing lists.
> >
> > The first mailing list would list new packages (not upgrades) added to
&g
On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 05:21:47PM -0400, Kurt Meyer wrote:
> I would like to suggest the start of two new mailing lists.
>
> The first mailing list would list new packages (not upgrades) added to
> Debian Unstable. I realize that there is the New Packages in "Sid" page
I would like to suggest the start of two new mailing lists.
The first mailing list would list new packages (not upgrades) added to Debian
Unstable. I realize that there is the New Packages in "Sid" page, but a mailing
list would be more convenient in my opinion.
The second mailing
Hi,
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 08:12:35PM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> > Folks,
> >
> > We currently have a minimal Debian mailing list code of conduct at
> > https://www.debian.org/MailingLists which is, essentially,
> > primarily tips on how to format ema
Hi Andrew,
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 08:12:35PM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> Folks,
>
> We currently have a minimal Debian mailing list code of conduct at
> https://www.debian.org/MailingLists which is, essentially,
> primarily tips on how to format email. At the same time, we
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
I believe this proposal, at its core, has good value and is based on sound
logic.
My concern, however, is that despite the title "code of conduct" being used
on both instances, the Mailing List Code of Conduct (CoC) presents a number
o
Folks,
We currently have a minimal Debian mailing list code of conduct at
https://www.debian.org/MailingLists which is, essentially,
primarily tips on how to format email. At the same time, we have the
main Debian Code of Conduct at https://www.debian.org/code_of_conduct} which
is also
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 06:52:35PM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>
>
>
> There are various debian-events-* mailing lists, I've requested a new
> one for Asia/Pacific region events:
>
> https://bugs.debian.org/814779
>
I support Daniel's request.
Regards,
Prach
signature.asc
Description: PGP
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 4:52 AM, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> There are various debian-events-* mailing lists, I've requested a new
> one for Asia/Pacific region events:
>
> https://bugs.debian.org/814779
I support the creation of debian-events-apac.
--
bye,
pabs
https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
There are various debian-events-* mailing lists, I've requested a new
one for Asia/Pacific region events:
https://bugs.debian.org/814779
As requested by the listmasters[1], could people in favour of this idea
please send an email of support to 814...@bugs.debian.org (or just reply
to this emai
The debian-rtc list is now created:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-rtc/
Please come and join if you have questions about rtc.debian.org or
anything about RTC on a Debian system.
Please also look out for the FOSDEM main track announcements...
Regards,
Daniel
Hello ,
I am a professional data specialist and have a mailing list of more than
5000 contacts that I am willing to sell. The list contains e-mail, first
name, last name, title, company, category, country, source and website
information of deans, professors and staff from colleges mainly in the
On 26/10/15 22:38, Alexander Wirt wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Oct 2015, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I've requested a mailing list on lists.debian.org for general discussion
>> about RTC
>>
>> This includes supporting the rt
On Mon, 26 Oct 2015, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> I've requested a mailing list on lists.debian.org for general discussion
> about RTC
>
> This includes supporting the rtc.debian.org service, use of any of the
> RTC packages and any related projects w
Hi all,
I've requested a mailing list on lists.debian.org for general discussion
about RTC
This includes supporting the rtc.debian.org service, use of any of the
RTC packages and any related projects with communications features like
FreedomBox, derivatives or blends.
https://bugs.debia
* Neil McGovern , 2014-03-04, 18:19:
The review interface offers more than binary spam/ham classification.
These are the choices you have:
Out of interest, is the interface available to general DDs?
Yup, every DD can participate:
https://lists.debian.org/archive-spam-removals/review/
--
Jaku
Hi Jakub,
On 4 Mar 2014, at 17:40, Jakub Wilk wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 09:13:06AM +, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
>>> Thanks for the suggestion. I hate to be *that guy*, but, these messages are
>>> not spam. They are damaging, time wasting and clutter our views of our
>>> mailing lists
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 09:13:06AM +, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
Thanks for the suggestion. I hate to be *that guy*, but, these
messages are not spam. They are damaging, time wasting and clutter our
views of our mailing lists, this is true. Perhaps it is appropriate to
use the spam architectur
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 09:13:06AM +, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> Hi Christian,
> [ moving to -project which might be more appropriate for follow-ups ]
> Thanks for the suggestion. I hate to be *that guy*, but, these messages
> are not spam. They are damaging, time wasting and clutter our views
Hi Christian,
[ moving to -project which might be more appropriate for follow-ups ]
Thanks for the suggestion. I hate to be *that guy*, but, these messages
are not spam. They are damaging, time wasting and clutter our views of
our mailing lists, this is true. Perhaps it is appropriate to use the
Jakub Wilk dijo [Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 10:52:35PM +0100]:
> * Holger Levsen , 2014-02-05, 22:31:
> >I believe every new DD or DM should be auto subscribed to -devel,
> >-project and -devel-announce (and -private for DDs),
>
> Eww, no, thanks.
>
> >Those 3-4 lists should be read by anyone (as in DD
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 10:31:17PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Those 3-4 lists should be read by anyone (as in DD/DM) anyway. This way, we'd
> gently push new contributors to lists we'd expect them to read anyway...
Actually, I sincerely hope this thread won't become a giant thread like
the one
On 06/02/14 at 01:46 +0100, Francesca Ciceri wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 10:31:17PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I believe every new DD or DM should be auto subscribed to -devel, -project
> > and
> > -devel-announce (and -private for DDs), best with the usual "someone
> > su
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 09:43:12PM +, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> I don't have an opinion on whether having DAM send a mail to
> $list-subscr...@lists.debian.org (for some set of lists) instead of
> just one mail with a pointer to the lists.debian.org subscription
> page, except for this: I would
]] Holger Levsen
> Those 3-4 lists should be read by anyone (as in DD/DM) anyway. This way, we'd
> gently push new contributors to lists we'd expect them to read anyway...
I think they should be reading those lists (well, those appropriate for
them) before they become DDs, so I'm not sure how u
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I believe every new DD or DM should be auto subscribed to -devel, -project and
> -devel-announce (and -private for DDs), best with the usual "someone
> subscribed you for this, please confirm" confirmation mail, not sure how to
> make
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 10:31:17PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I believe every new DD or DM should be auto subscribed to -devel, -project
> and
> -devel-announce (and -private for DDs), best with the usual "someone
> subscribed you for this, please confirm" confirmation mail, not sure
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 10:31:17PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
> I believe every new DD or DM should be auto subscribed to -devel,
> -project and -devel-announce (and -private for DDs), best with the
> usual "someone subscribed you for this, please confirm" confirmation
> mail, not sure how to make
* Holger Levsen , 2014-02-05, 22:31:
I believe every new DD or DM should be auto subscribed to -devel,
-project and -devel-announce (and -private for DDs),
Eww, no, thanks.
Those 3-4 lists should be read by anyone (as in DD/DM) anyway.
Not if you want to retain your sanity.
--
Jakub Wilk
Hi,
I believe every new DD or DM should be auto subscribed to -devel, -project and
-devel-announce (and -private for DDs), best with the usual "someone
subscribed you for this, please confirm" confirmation mail, not sure how to
make this reality (as in: how to change DAM procedures), probably b
eople from some time, which means I fully support
your standpoint here.
In fact, there are many "toxic" users in there (toxic → aka, the usual
trolls which insult and undervalue other mailing list participants), but
to be sincere, banning is nothing I'd like to promote (maybe a p
A few months ago, we had a discussion on debian-project about how mailing
list bans should be handled.
https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2013/10/msg00090.html
Although there was no statement from the listmasters to this effect on the
public thread, they evidently considered the thread to
Hi,
I'm quite very late to this party, but I want to express that I do agree with
the general idea of publishing mailinglist bans. (In public, with a duration
attached to it, probably with other restraints I've forgotten since I've read
this thread.)
What's the "official status" of the listmas
On Sunday 27 October 2013 08:54:30 Enrico Zini wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 05:27:25PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Simply obfuscating the name on the list of banned users (or not posting
> > any names at all, only links to the posts that led to the ban) would
>
> I'm in favour of not posting n
]] Stefano Zacchiroli
> On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 02:51:52PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> > > So, what would be the beneficial social effects of publishing the ban
> > > *duration*?
> >
> > The ban duration is an indication of how severe we think the violation
> > is. You don't get a lifetime
Russ Allbery wrote:
> Camaleón writes:
>
> > The mailing list managers/admins have the right to ban whoever they
> > decide, but in the aim of "fair play", the user should also have the
> > right to defend him/herself from the accusations, expose his/her
> &
Le Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 02:33:34PM -0500, Brian Gupta a écrit :
>
> I don't know the answer but perhaps, we can try experimenting with a system
> where the first action is a polite public warning by listmaster, pointing to
> code of conduct. (Assuming that the code of conduct is updated to cover
>
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Camaleón writes:
>
>> The mailing list managers/admins have the right to ban whoever they
>> decide, but in the aim of "fair play", the user should also have the
>> right to defend him/herself fr
On Mon, 04 Nov 2013 09:17:29 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Camaleón writes:
>
>> The mailing list managers/admins have the right to ban whoever they
>> decide, but in the aim of "fair play", the user should also have the
>> right to defend him/herself fr
Camaleón writes:
> The mailing list managers/admins have the right to ban whoever they
> decide, but in the aim of "fair play", the user should also have the
> right to defend him/herself from the accusations, expose his/her
> reasoning and be able to restore him/her reput
On Sat, 26 Oct 2013 10:46:41 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Was discussing with one of the listmasters (Alexander Wirt) on IRC today
> about mailing list bans, because it turns out that someone I was just
> about to ask the listmasters to ban from debian-deve
Le lundi, 4 novembre 2013 15.08:05 Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
> On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 02:51:52PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> > > So, what would be the beneficial social effects of publishing the
> > > ban *duration*?
> >
> > The ban duration is an indication of how severe we think the
> >
On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 02:51:52PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> > So, what would be the beneficial social effects of publishing the ban
> > *duration*?
>
> The ban duration is an indication of how severe we think the violation
> is. You don't get a lifetime ban for a minor transgression and yo
]] Stefano Zacchiroli
> So, what would be the beneficial social effects of publishing the ban
> *duration*?
The ban duration is an indication of how severe we think the violation
is. You don't get a lifetime ban for a minor transgression and you
don't get a one-day ban for serious harassments.
On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 02:21:17PM +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> I disagree on the point of not making the ban durations public. Although
> I understand the effect you're afraid of, I think that the benefits of
> having the durations public outweigh the downsides: even if the banned
> per
Hi Jonathan,
Le dimanche, 3 novembre 2013 14.06:33 Jonathan Dowland a écrit :
> I think bans should be time-limited in
> almost all cases, with perma-bans being very rare indeed. I don't
> think that ban durations should be disclosed publically or to the
> person banned
My feeling before reading this thread was that bans should be accessible
to DDs somewhere but this thread has convinced me that they should be
made public. I think bans should be time-limited in almost all cases,
with perma-bans being very rare indeed. I don't think that ban durations
should be dis
Le Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 07:58:03AM +, Lars Wirzenius a écrit :
> On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 09:00:20AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> >
> > Given how arbitrarly other bans have been proposed, I think that the
> > outcome should stay private unless the banned person wishes so.
>
> I don't underst
Ingo Jürgensmann dijo [Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 08:56:59PM +0200]:
> > This led to a philosophical debate about whether bans should be made public.
> > Alexander expressed concern that having them published could be harmful to a
> > person's reputation, since employers will google your name and see tha
Steve Langasek writes ("Should mailing list bans be published?"):
> I think we should publish them, for several reasons:
I agree wholeheartedly.
Also, to expand on this:
> - It casts sunlight on the kinds of decisions that the listmasters are
>making WRT bans, so that w
Russ Allbery writes ("Re: Should mailing list bans be published?"):
> But, against that, I would say that the point of mailing list bans is not
> to humiliate or expose someone who behaved poorly, or even to call further
> attention to their poor behavior. Rather, the goal i
don't think bans need to be posted anywhere prominent like
> debian-devel-announce, but I do think basic facts like who is banned,
> for how long, and the rationale (with links to specific mailing list
> posts as reference) should be made public.
It is IMHO very important that publis
their behaviour because we do actually ban people
The post to debian-private does fail to provide closure for non DDs but
otherwise does the job, and I would think that the readership of
debian-private is diverse enough that the spectrum of opinion should be
wide enough to ensure good oversight.
A
part in Article 8, 1 European Convention on Human Rights
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_8_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights).
The name of a person is, of course, a personal data and thus proteced under
privacy rights. When that person writes to a mailing list, s/he is granting the
On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 12:46:07PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 05:27:25PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Bart Martens wrote:
> > > I suggest we keep things civil, with respect for the persons involved.
> > > It's
> > > really not up to Debian to harm someone's reputation,
On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 10:33:42PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Joey Hess:
> > Simply obfuscating the name on the list of banned users (or not posting
> > any names at all, only links to the posts that led to the ban) would
> > eliminate most reputational damage. Ie, random searches for that
>
> On Sun, 27 Oct 2013, Charles Plessy wrote:
>
> > In parallel, I think that we need some technical or social pressure for
> > limiting to 1 or 2 messages a day each individual contribution to long
> > threads.
Le Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 07:35:56AM +0100, Alexander Wirt a écrit :
>
> That is nonsen
legal troubles.
In the United States, fact is an absolute defense against libel, so a web
page or email message stating simply that "this email address has been
banned from this mailing list" or "the author of the message at URL has
been banned from this mailing list" is not actio
Hi.
Perhaps one should think whether such publishing might have legal
consequences...
In some countries (like the US) it seems not be so uncommon to publicly
name offenders or criminals on webpages... in Europe though, you might
get into legal troubles.
Cheers,
Chris.
smime.p7s
Description: S
* Joey Hess:
> Simply obfuscating the name on the list of banned users (or not posting
> any names at all, only links to the posts that led to the ban) would
> eliminate most reputational damage. Ie, random searches for that
> person would not turn up a high pagerank debian.org page listing their
disclosing bans to -private is good
enough. Non-DDs (or simply DDs who don't read every -private mail) would
have no way of knowing who is banned, and therefore might be tricked
into thinking that specific bad behavior patterns visible in the mailing
list archives have been tolerated.
Once the prin
Steve Langasek writes:
> This also seems like a good compromise to me. Do the other folks who
> object to publishing information that could damage the poster's
> reputation (e.g., Bart, Ingo) think this is ok?
The problem that I have with publicly posting mailing list bans is t
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 05:27:25PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Bart Martens wrote:
> > I suggest we keep things civil, with respect for the persons involved. It's
> > really not up to Debian to harm someone's reputation, and that could reflect
> > bad on Debian's reputation.
> > Approaches I could
On Sun, 27 Oct 2013, Boris Pek wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > What do the rest of you think?
>
> +1 for publishing the facts of bans and their reasons in a public mailing
> list.
> Only with one correction which have been well described by Rhonda:
>
> >> - It provide
Hi,
> What do the rest of you think?
+1 for publishing the facts of bans and their reasons in a public mailing list.
Only with one correction which have been well described by Rhonda:
>> - It provides a reference point for newcomers to the Debian community to
>> judge their
On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 08:54:30AM +0100, Enrico Zini wrote:
> I'm in favour of not posting names but links to the posts that led to
> the ban. That it solves the problem of google-shaming is welcome, but
> marginal to me. The most important thing to me in doing that, is that we
> make it clear tha
Am Sonntag, 27. Oktober 2013, 08:54:30 schrieb Enrico Zini:
> On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 05:27:25PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Simply obfuscating the name on the list of banned users (or not posting
> > any names at all, only links to the posts that led to the ban) would
>
> I'm in favour of not pos
Am Sonntag, 27. Oktober 2013, 07:58:03 schrieb Lars Wirzenius:
> On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 09:00:20AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > Le Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 10:46:41AM -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> > > What do the rest of you think?
> >
> > Given how arbitrarly other bans have been proposed, I
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 05:27:25PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Simply obfuscating the name on the list of banned users (or not posting
> any names at all, only links to the posts that led to the ban) would
I'm in favour of not posting names but links to the posts that led to
the ban. That it solves
On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 09:00:20AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 10:46:41AM -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> >
> > What do the rest of you think?
>
> Given how arbitrarly other bans have been proposed, I think that the
> outcome should stay private unless the banned pers
Hi!
In general I agree, but one reason can fire back:
* Steve Langasek [2013-10-26 19:46:41 CEST]:
> - It provides a reference point for newcomers to the Debian community to
>judge their actions by, to understand what kinds of things will get them
>banned from participation (althou
On Sun, 27 Oct 2013, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 10:46:41AM -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> >
> > What do the rest of you think?
>
> Given how arbitrarly other bans have been proposed, I think that the outcome
> should stay private unless the banned person wishes so. This
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 10:46:41AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
>So I don't think bans need to be posted anywhere prominent like
>debian-devel-announce, but I do think basic facts like who is banned, for
>how long, and the rationale (with links to specific mailing list po
On Sat, 26 Oct 2013, Joey Hess wrote:
> Bart Martens wrote:
> > I suggest we keep things civil, with respect for the persons involved. It's
> > really not up to Debian to harm someone's reputation, and that could reflect
> > bad on Debian's reputation.
> > Approaches I could support :
> > - pos
Le Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 10:46:41AM -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit :
>
> What do the rest of you think?
Given how arbitrarly other bans have been proposed, I think that the outcome
should stay private unless the banned person wishes so. This will also reduce
the pressure on the listmasters, by red
> good. If we get the reputation for harming the reputations of folks
> who harass and abuse others, well, fine by me -- just don't troll the
> MLs.
I think that our reputation is harmed more by mailing list archives containing
argumentative / vitriolic emails than by a reasoned (
; > > > It's really not up to Debian to harm someone's reputation, and that
> > > > could
> > > > reflect bad on Debian's reputation.
>
> > > I don't understand this argument. What harm comes to Debian's reputation
> > >
that could
> > > reflect bad on Debian's reputation.
> > I don't understand this argument. What harm comes to Debian's reputation
> > from showing publically that we do not tolerate abusive behavior on our
> > mailing list?
> The harm that could come to
; reflect bad on Debian's reputation.
>
> I don't understand this argument. What harm comes to Debian's reputation
> from showing publically that we do not tolerate abusive behavior on our
> mailing list?
The harm that could come to Debian's reputation is that
Bart Martens wrote:
> I suggest we keep things civil, with respect for the persons involved. It's
> really not up to Debian to harm someone's reputation, and that could reflect
> bad on Debian's reputation.
>
> Approaches I could support :
> - post the bans with reasons on debian-private
> - or m
expanding on this point of the OP,
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 10:46:41AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
- It provides a reference point for newcomers to the Debian
community to judge their actions by, to understand what kinds of
things will get them banned from participation (although I expect
On Sat, 2013-10-26 at 20:24 +, Bart Martens wrote:
> Cover up ? I did suggest approaches with full transparency among DDs.
I don't think that's the meaning of “public” Steve (And Lars) initially
thought about…
Regards,
--
Yves-Alexis
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed me
t;
> > I join Alexander on the above.
> >
> > > What do the rest of you think?
> >
> > I suggest we keep things civil, with respect for the persons involved. It's
> > really not up to Debian to harm someone's reputation, and that could reflect
> > ba
On Sat, 2013-10-26 at 10:46 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Was discussing with one of the listmasters (Alexander Wirt) on IRC today
> about mailing list bans, because it turns out that someone I was just about
> to ask the listmasters to ban from debian-devel had ju
respect for the persons involved. It's
> really not up to Debian to harm someone's reputation, and that could reflect
> bad on Debian's reputation.
[...]
This is the same argument used to cover up all kinds of abuses. Maybe
in the case of mailing list bans the infraction is mino
pect for the persons involved.
> It's really not up to Debian to harm someone's reputation, and that could
> reflect bad on Debian's reputation.
I don't understand this argument. What harm comes to Debian's reputation
from showing publically that we do not tolera
Bart Martens writes:
> Approaches I could support :
> - post the bans with reasons on debian-private
+1. I think this provides most of the benefits that Steve names (albeit
in a reduced form) and allows oversight without getting into a public
fight with that person. (Or getting into weird issu
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 10:46:41AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> This led to a philosophical debate about whether bans should be made public.
> Alexander expressed concern that having them published could be harmful to a
> person's reputation, since employers will google your name and see that
> y
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 08:56:59PM +0200, Ingo Jürgensmann wrote:
> Am 26.10.2013 um 19:46 schrieb Steve Langasek :
> > This led to a philosophical debate about whether bans should be made public.
> > Alexander expressed concern that having them published could be harmful to a
> > person's reputat
On 10/26/2013 02:26 PM, Ingo Jürgensmann wrote:
> Am 26.10.2013 um 19:46 schrieb Steve Langasek :
>
>> This led to a philosophical debate about whether bans should be made public.
>> Alexander expressed concern that having them published could be harmful to a
>> person's reputation, since employer
1 - 100 of 210 matches
Mail list logo
