Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 11:09:41PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Raul> Yes, of course you can. > I think that would be wrong, to imply that a bunch of people > had signed on to the draft document without asking them I don't think Ian implied that at all, for reference. If he did, I'm ce

Re: Disputes document - metaflameage

On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 03:04:02AM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > Branden [...] > have been telling us at length how high-handed and > undemocratic and otherwise evil I am This assertion is without foundation. I have made no such claim. > Branden [...] can complain [...] that > obviously I'm being

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 05:37:30PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > I think, however, that much of the disagreeing is a result of Branden's > politicing. In what way have I been politicking? I made a number of suggestions in response Ian's first proposed draft -- some of which he incoporated, some he

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 02:43:28AM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > And, loud as you and Branden are, In what way have I been "loud"? You have complained several times about my messages but have not given me any prescriptive advice for how better to communicate with you, unless one counts the implicit

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes: Anthony> On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 11:09:41PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Raul> Yes, of course you can. >> I think that would be wrong, to imply that a bunch of people >> had signed on to the draft document without asking them Anthony> I don't think Ian

finding a consensus (was: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me)

i think in the present situation (both sides getting really worked up on the topic, it became a personal issue, the discussion starts being about beeing right and no longer about finding a solution) it would make sense to let someone else take over the draft and integrate suggestions. I propose b

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 01:52:47AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > >>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes: > When I read a draft with a bunch of co-authors names on the > authors list, I do tend to assume that the co-authors have signed on > to the document. *shrug* Your assumption was wron

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes: Anthony> On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 01:52:47AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> >>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes: >> When I read a draft with a bunch of co-authors names on the >> authors list, I do tend to assume that the co-authors have signed on >> t

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 03:00:18AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Is the number of things one is permitted to be concerned about > a 0 sum game now? *shrug* I just don't think this is worth getting all hyped up about. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: Disputes between developers - content, draft #4

On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 03:09:53AM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > 6. Bug report etiquette [...] > * The bug was reported; the maintainer felt immediately that it was a > spurious bug report of some kind, and closed it, but the submitter > disagrees with the explanation and has reopened the report fo

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 02:03:04PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > Maybe a GR really is the best way to go; we may find out that we can't > even muster quorum on the issue, and that Ian, Manoj, and I have all > inflated notions of the importance of this issue. Maybe most developers > are willing

Re: debian cd-image mirrors and US export restrictions

Am Mittwoch, 6. November 2002 04:13 schrieb Peter Palfrader: > On Tue, 05 Nov 2002, Andrew Lau wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 11:32:15PM +0100, Harald K. wrote: > > > In contrast to the package servers, the debian cd image mirrors are > > > not separated according to this circumstances. Also t

Re: debian cd-image mirrors and US export restrictions

On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 11:32:15PM +0100, Harald K. wrote: > The hundred of mirrors containing the debian packages are clearly > separated into those, which are located in the US, and those, which are > not, because of the non-us tree, they are containing packages from. In > contrast to the packag

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'm going to digress here somewhat on the `lurkers support me in > email' question: > > As I said earlier the private mail I've received has convinced me that > I do have support for what I'm trying to do. I don't expect my > opponents (or indeed anyone el

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 11:38:39AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 02:03:04PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > Maybe a GR really is the best way to go; we may find out that we can't > > even muster quorum on the issue, and that Ian, Manoj, and I have all > > inflated notio

diff between Ian Jackson's Disputes Draft 3 and Draft 4

A unified diff of the changes Ian made to reflect people's feedback on draft 3 of his proposed disputes resolution document is MIME-attached. The changes appear to be: + changes to the list of parties of whom the document claims to be representative; + stylistic alterations to the paragraph on

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 11:09:41PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > I think that would be wrong, to imply that a bunch of people > had signed on to the draft document without asking them I think a lot of the heatedness in this discussion is a reaction to implications rather than a reaction

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 12:01:52PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 11:38:39AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 02:03:04PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > > Maybe a GR really is the best way to go; we may find out that we can't > > > even muster q

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 06:37:29PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > People who take things personally are not going to behave in a rational > manner, and some people just aren't rational; Debian has an ample supply > of both. People who are acting rationally can sort things out on their > own, witho

Re: Disputes between developers - content, draft #4

Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: Disputes between developers - content, draft #4"): > Well, here is a detailed critique. Unfortunately, there is a > lot of ground to cover between our positions; here is a start. Thanks. Much of what you say can be summed up, I think, by the sentiments from

All vi and clone to be removed from unstable

Hi, This is a joint draft message from the release manager and Manoj Srivastava Of course it is not, really. I would hope that all right minded people would agree and sign on to the holy task of eradicating all non emacs editors from the face of the planet. But,

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

Raul Miller writes ("Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me"): > On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 11:09:41PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > I think that would be wrong, to imply that a bunch of people > > had signed on to the draft document without asking them > >

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

Bdale Garbee writes ("Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me"): > Well, I did respond to your original draft privately providing encouragement > about the creation of the document in general, and suggesting some changs. I've just gone back through my email arch

Re: Disputes between developers - content, draft #4

On Wed, 6 Nov 2002, Ian Jackson wrote: > I think you must have a different experience to me. I've found that > many developers don't seem to share enough of the context and unspoken > rules. I think writing them down will help. I also think it might > produce some useful pressure on those peopl

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

On Wed, 6 Nov 2002, Ian Jackson wrote: > Perhaps I can help. > > It seems that, despite marking my document DRAFT etc., I've offended > some people by in their view giving the impression that the document > is currently anything more than something I'm working on - with > people's help, of course,

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 02:18:58PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 06:37:29PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > People who take things personally are not going to behave in a rational > > manner, and some people just aren't rational; Debian has an ample supply > > of both. Peopl

Bug#168122: project: alsa-xmms

Package: project Version: N/A; reported 2002-11-07 Severity: wishlist Hello, I wonder why the package alsa-xmms isn't called xmms-alsa. The only use for this package is to run together with xmms. Many users are only looking in the first time to ^xmms* and so they don't see it. Shouldn't this pa

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

Adam Heath writes ("Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me"): > That's the problem. You keep saying it's *you* working on it. If > it's for Debian at large, then we *all* should work on it. Stop > being so ego centric. I'm terribly sorry that I'm being ego cen

Re: Disputes between developers - content, draft #4

Hamish Moffatt writes ("Re: Disputes between developers - content, draft #4"): > On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 03:09:53AM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > > 6. Bug report etiquette > [...] > > * [...] The matter should be debated until both Developers are > > happy. > > This seems to imply that only develop

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

Bdale Garbee writes ("Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me"): > Well, I did respond to your original draft privately providing encouragement > about the creation of the document in general, and suggesting some changs. (Looking it up again ...) the point you m

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 02:54:54PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote: > That's the problem. You keep saying it's *you* working on it. If it's for > Debian at large, then we *all* should work on it. Stop being so ego centric. ``That's the problem. You keep saying *you're* working on the Bug Tracking Syste

Re: All vi and clone to be removed from unstable

On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 02:34:11PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > This is a joint draft message from the release manager and > Manoj Srivastava The phrase Ian used was "DRAFT joint message", implying that it was a "draft of a (joint message)" open for review. Your phrase is the op

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

>>"Ian" == Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Ian> As you can see, in this message I'm following your example more Ian> closely. All I need now is a productive person to flame, rather than Ian> an obstructive arsehole. Is this an advocated technique for conflict resolution that

Re: All vi and clone to be removed from unstable

>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes: Anthony> On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 02:34:11PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> This is a joint draft message from the release manager and >> Manoj Srivastava Anthony> The phrase Ian used was "DRAFT joint message", implying that Anthony> it was a "dra

Re: All vi and clone to be removed from unstable

On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 09:38:36PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > >>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes: > I see. So your implication is that merely by transposing the > words joint and draft the message gains legitimacy? And _you_ have > the gall to call _me_ an idiot? Jesus. > > Antho

Re: Disputes between developers - content, draft #4

>>"Ian" == Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Ian> Hamish Moffatt writes ("Re: Disputes between developers - content, draft #4"): >> This seems to imply that only developers submit bugs. Although your >> document is specifically about communications between developers, >> developers also

Re: Disputes between developers - content, draft #4

>>"Ian" == Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Ian> I think you must have a different experience to me. I've found Ian> that many developers don't seem to share enough of the context Ian> and unspoken rules. I agree that develoeprs may come from different cultures and contexts --

Re: All vi and clone to be removed from unstable

On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 09:38:36PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Since they are not derived from the one true editor. Apart > from being a name calling moron, you have no humour gene. Oddly enough, idiocy within Debian doesn't leave me particularly amused any more, whether it's faked or

Re: All vi and clone to be removed from unstable

>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes: Anthony> On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 09:38:36PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> Since they are not derived from the one true editor. Apart from >> being a name calling moron, you have no humour gene. Anthony> Oddly enough, idiocy within Debian doesn't leave

Re: All vi and clone to be removed from unstable

>>"Duncan" == Duncan Findlay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Duncan> I can now see just how important this conflict resolution document is Duncan> going to be. If we can craft one that works, most certainly. So far, none of us has demonstrated any ability to actuallycome up with a techni

A different approach to a conflict resolution document

Hi, [Please follow up to debian-project] Well, given that I have deep philosophical differences with the document Ian is crafting, and acknowledging that one ought to have an alternative, I have decided to start an collaborative effort to create a new one. Unlike Ian,

Re: Disputes between developers - content, draft #4

Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: Disputes between developers - content, draft #4"): > > 6. Bug report etiquette ... > > [...] Bug reports are `todo list' items for the whole Project > > I strongly disagree. The Bug list is a communications > mechanism that allows us to improve debian, and as

Disputes between developers - content, draft #5

This is my current working draft. As ever, do please send this list, or me privately, any substantive comments you have on it. Changes in this version - Put the Project Leader back as a person who might approve of it, since I found Bdale's email after all. (duh) - (Hopefully) improveme

Re: Disputes between developers - content, draft #5

On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 01:01:55AM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > This is my current working draft. As ever, do please send this list, > or me privately, any substantive comments you have on it. Will you please look at my suggestions? They still apply. Thanks, -- Duncan Findlay

Re: A different approach to a conflict resolution document

Hi, To get the discussion rolling even faster, given the broad categories of the kinds of situations where conflict resolution may be required, it would be nice to have an idea what pushes peoples buttons (I know what pushes mine, but I would like to hear other peoples). A re