Outsider here. Conflict around Norbert's mode of discourse and Ian's
mode of responding to it has clearly been an ongoing problem for
Debian for over five years: https://lwn.net/Articles/575390/ What
tools for resolving this exist now that didn't exist then? If the
answer is "nothing much", the
s/Ubuntu/no-name-anymore/
On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:56:37PM -0500, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
>> Seems as though Joey is already taking the lead on this:
>>
>> http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=collab-maint/debmirror.git;a=commitdiff;h=fc
On 7/15/05, Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You're being quite presumptuous about people's motives. How do you know that
> someone 'prefers to hide' that they do debian work, just because they do not
> advertise it?
Could the DPL please just delegate somebody with authority to weed
this
On 7/15/05, Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It seems like there is already someone with this authority, but whenever he
> tries to do his job, he gets harangued by people who don't approve of the
> way he's doing it.
That's why God invented thick skins and the "delete" key.
- M
On 7/15/05, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But then, how do we not know they don't propose redhat solutions or whatever
> to people coming to them through us ?
I've implemented migrations and cross-packaging from Red Hat to
Debian, Debian to Ubuntu, Ubuntu to Red Hat, and various other
p
On 7/15/05, Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 05:53:30PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > Thomas has probably heard, and taken note of, the concern that many
> > free-lance Debian consultants are on an academic year schedule and
> >
On 7/28/05, Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 14:54 +, Andre Felipe Machado wrote:
> > Please, explain these issues.
>
> The short explanation, I think, is that people often have different
> ideas.
The longer explanation, I think, can be had by looking back in th
The notion of a "pledge to killfile" Andrew is thoroughly juvenile. I
am probably as guilty (if that is the word) as anyone of negatively
critiquing his conduct on public Debian lists; but I would be
horrified to see him censored. Surely, even if every unkind thing I
have seen written about him w
On 8/9/05, Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The notion of a "pledge to killfile" Andrew is thoroughly juvenile. I
> > am probably as guilty (if that is the word) as anyone of negatively
> > cr
On 8/9/05, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, quite. First they came for those who gratuitously insulted people on
> the lists; then they came for the ones who posted diatribes about RMS's
> occupation on -legal; then they came for you, and... oh wait, they already
> got you, didn't
On 8/9/05, Manoj Srivastava va, manoj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I fail to follow this. Ultimately, killfiling is a personal
> decision. If a bunch of people are all of one mind over kill filing
> someone, how does it affect the reputation of rational discourse?
> Since when have I bee
On 8/15/05, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That does not extend to permit a group to go around making accusations
> and advocating that other people do something based on those
> accusations. In the real world, this is a tort, specifically
> defamation of character. And benefit of the
I wrote:
> "Z rejoices in the flames that his posts
> inspire", which is more or less the factual content of "Z's posts are
> trolls" [1] ...
Whoops, left out Footnote 1, which is my own take on the same topic as
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/troll.html :
FWIW, the origin of this usage o
On 8/22/05, Anthony Towns wrote:
[snip mostly sensible stuff]
> I certainly hope not, at least until you've learnt where the boundary is
> between speaking on behalf of yourself and speaking on behalf of Debian.
> The above crosses it, eg -- what makes you think Debian wants to accept as
> an offi
On 8/24/05, Benj. Mako Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Just out of curiosity, what interests do you think the DCC Alliance
> > has that aren't in ours? If you don't know, have you asked?
>
> The goal of the project seems to be create a large binary-compatible
> core upon which folks can ce
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 01:57:08 -0600, Manoj Srivastava
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> Software that resides on disk, however, lives on our side of
> the divide; the kernel, and the filesystem drivers are required to
> mediate delivery of this non-free payload to the system, and it can'
On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 14:49:36 +0100, Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Craig Sanders:
>
> > and, as you pointed out yourself, this freedom (to patch) exists
> > even when it is not explicitly granted by the license.
>
> Without permission from the author, you may not redistribute patch
> Once the hardware's out there, it's out there--I don't think the case of
> "all devices with firmware in flash have been tracked down and destroyed,
> so we have to move this driver back to contrib" is a serious worry.
I was thinking more of the cases, "skipping the firmware download used
to res
On 6/8/05, Thaddeus H. Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have obtained the reporter Guth's work phone number
> and do mean to phone him when he reaches his desk this
> morning. He's on U.S. Pacific Time (GMT minus 0700).
> Have you any suggestion as to what I should say?
Tell 'im, Debian "unst
On 6/8/05, Thaddeus H. Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Peter, Michael, your responses were immensely helpful.
> Thank you. When I called, voice mail picked up, and I
> did leave a voice message combining Peter's structure
> and points with Michael's solid content. Whether the
> reporter Guth p
20 matches
Mail list logo
