On Tue, 23 Oct 2001, Martin Schulze wrote:
>John Galt wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 Oct 2001, Martin Schulze wrote:
>>
>> >John Galt wrote:
>> >>
>> >> It really didn't need to go to -devel in the first place: this is
>> >> internal
>> >> to debian-security until there's a candidate. Folloups redirecte
John Galt wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Oct 2001, Martin Schulze wrote:
>
> >John Galt wrote:
> >>
> >> It really didn't need to go to -devel in the first place: this is internal
> >> to debian-security until there's a candidate. Folloups redirected.
> >
> >Err... you have noticed that there are already t
On Tue, 23 Oct 2001, Martin Schulze wrote:
>John Galt wrote:
>>
>> It really didn't need to go to -devel in the first place: this is internal
>> to debian-security until there's a candidate. Folloups redirected.
>
>Err... you have noticed that there are already two people filling
>this position,
John Galt wrote:
>
> It really didn't need to go to -devel in the first place: this is internal
> to debian-security until there's a candidate. Folloups redirected.
Err... you have noticed that there are already two people filling
this position, haven't you?
Regards,
Joey
--
This is
On 22 Oct 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> The whole problem here is they DIDN'T ask you. You threw in your two
>> cents worth without a corresponding pledge of support.
>
>It's a public mailing list, and I was simply contributing my
>suggestion. Y
John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The whole problem here is they DIDN'T ask you. You threw in your two
> cents worth without a corresponding pledge of support.
It's a public mailing list, and I was simply contributing my
suggestion. You decided it should be a big Federal case.
I'll ma
On 22 Oct 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> They aren't reasonable things to add at the last minute. The search
>> happened, AFAICT there is a candidate, yet you had to object now. If it
>> was so reasonable, why didn't you mention it when it came up
John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> They aren't reasonable things to add at the last minute. The search
> happened, AFAICT there is a candidate, yet you had to object now. If it
> was so reasonable, why didn't you mention it when it came up?
> Reasonableness cannot be applied to concepts
On 22 Oct 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> On 22 Oct 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>>
>> >John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >
>> >> I take it then that you volunteer. If not, shut up. Throwing artifical
>> >> barriers at this office isn't
On Tue, 23 Oct 2001, Martin Schulze wrote:
>John Galt wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 Oct 2001, Martin Schulze wrote:
>>
>> >John Galt wrote:
>> >>
>> >> It really didn't need to go to -devel in the first place: this is internal
>> >> to debian-security until there's a candidate. Folloups redirected.
>>
John Galt wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Oct 2001, Martin Schulze wrote:
>
> >John Galt wrote:
> >>
> >> It really didn't need to go to -devel in the first place: this is internal
> >> to debian-security until there's a candidate. Folloups redirected.
> >
> >Err... you have noticed that there are already
John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 22 Oct 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>
> >John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> I take it then that you volunteer. If not, shut up. Throwing artifical
> >> barriers at this office isn't going to add volunteers.
> >
> >How is it a barrier?
On Tue, 23 Oct 2001, Martin Schulze wrote:
>John Galt wrote:
>>
>> It really didn't need to go to -devel in the first place: this is internal
>> to debian-security until there's a candidate. Folloups redirected.
>
>Err... you have noticed that there are already two people filling
>this position
John Galt wrote:
>
> It really didn't need to go to -devel in the first place: this is internal
> to debian-security until there's a candidate. Folloups redirected.
Err... you have noticed that there are already two people filling
this position, haven't you?
Regards,
Joey
--
This is
On 22 Oct 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> The whole problem here is they DIDN'T ask you. You threw in your two
>> cents worth without a corresponding pledge of support.
>
>It's a public mailing list, and I was simply contributing my
>suggestion.
John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The whole problem here is they DIDN'T ask you. You threw in your two
> cents worth without a corresponding pledge of support.
It's a public mailing list, and I was simply contributing my
suggestion. You decided it should be a big Federal case.
I'll m
On 22 Oct 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> They aren't reasonable things to add at the last minute. The search
>> happened, AFAICT there is a candidate, yet you had to object now. If it
>> was so reasonable, why didn't you mention it when it came u
John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> They aren't reasonable things to add at the last minute. The search
> happened, AFAICT there is a candidate, yet you had to object now. If it
> was so reasonable, why didn't you mention it when it came up?
> Reasonableness cannot be applied to concept
On 22 Oct 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> On 22 Oct 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>>
>> >John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >
>> >> I take it then that you volunteer. If not, shut up. Throwing artifical
>> >> barriers at this office isn'
John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 22 Oct 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>
> >John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> I take it then that you volunteer. If not, shut up. Throwing artifical
> >> barriers at this office isn't going to add volunteers.
> >
> >How is it a barrier
It really didn't need to go to -devel in the first place: this is internal
to debian-security until there's a candidate. Folloups redirected.
On Tue, 23 Oct 2001, Jason Thomas wrote:
>only one thing, does this have to go to both lists, I'm alot of messages
>twice, and yes they have different me
On 22 Oct 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I take it then that you volunteer. If not, shut up. Throwing artifical
>> barriers at this office isn't going to add volunteers.
>
>How is it a barrier?
It's an extra qualification. It's one that until you
only one thing, does this have to go to both lists, I'm alot of messages
twice, and yes they have different message id's.
On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 09:43:05AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I take it then that you volunteer. If not, shut up. Throw
It really didn't need to go to -devel in the first place: this is internal
to debian-security until there's a candidate. Folloups redirected.
On Tue, 23 Oct 2001, Jason Thomas wrote:
>only one thing, does this have to go to both lists, I'm alot of messages
>twice, and yes they have different m
On 22 Oct 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I take it then that you volunteer. If not, shut up. Throwing artifical
>> barriers at this office isn't going to add volunteers.
>
>How is it a barrier?
It's an extra qualification. It's one that until yo
only one thing, does this have to go to both lists, I'm alot of messages
twice, and yes they have different message id's.
On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 09:43:05AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I take it then that you volunteer. If not, shut up. Thro
On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 08:23:24AM -0600, John Galt wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2001, Colin Phipps wrote:
> >The "barriers" to becoming a developer are mainly commitment to the
> >project and to the social contract, both of which should be
> >requirements for any security secretary. It doesn't imply pa
John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I take it then that you volunteer. If not, shut up. Throwing artifical
> barriers at this office isn't going to add volunteers.
How is it a barrier?
On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 08:23:24AM -0600, John Galt wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2001, Colin Phipps wrote:
> >The "barriers" to becoming a developer are mainly commitment to the
> >project and to the social contract, both of which should be
> >requirements for any security secretary. It doesn't imply p
Hi,
Quoting Colin Phipps ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 07:12:57AM -0600, John Galt wrote:
> > I take it then that you volunteer. If not, shut up. Throwing artifical
> > barriers at this office isn't going to add volunteers.
> The "barriers" to becoming a developer are mainly co
On Mon, 22 Oct 2001, Colin Phipps wrote:
>On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 07:12:57AM -0600, John Galt wrote:
>> On 21 Oct 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>> >Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >
>> >> Q: Is a requirement being a Debian developer?
>> >>
>> >>No. It is my understanding th
John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I take it then that you volunteer. If not, shut up. Throwing artifical
> barriers at this office isn't going to add volunteers.
How is it a barrier?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAI
On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 07:12:57AM -0600, John Galt wrote:
> On 21 Oct 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> >Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> Q: Is a requirement being a Debian developer?
> >>
> >>No. It is my understanding that it would be good to have "fresh
> >>blood"
On 21 Oct 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Q: Is a requirement being a Debian developer?
>>
>>No. It is my understanding that it would be good to have "fresh
>>blood" in the team. Working on security can cost a lot of time,
>>thus it
Hi,
Quoting Colin Phipps ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 07:12:57AM -0600, John Galt wrote:
> > I take it then that you volunteer. If not, shut up. Throwing artifical
> > barriers at this office isn't going to add volunteers.
> The "barriers" to becoming a developer are mainly c
On Mon, 22 Oct 2001, Colin Phipps wrote:
>On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 07:12:57AM -0600, John Galt wrote:
>> On 21 Oct 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>> >Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >
>> >> Q: Is a requirement being a Debian developer?
>> >>
>> >>No. It is my understanding t
On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 07:12:57AM -0600, John Galt wrote:
> On 21 Oct 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> >Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> Q: Is a requirement being a Debian developer?
> >>
> >>No. It is my understanding that it would be good to have "fresh
> >>blood
On 21 Oct 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Q: Is a requirement being a Debian developer?
>>
>>No. It is my understanding that it would be good to have "fresh
>>blood" in the team. Working on security can cost a lot of time,
>>thus i
On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 09:40:45AM +0300, Lauri Tischler wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> >
> > > I think the security secretary, if we have one, should be a Debian
> > > developer.
> >
> > We have two of them, and they are both card-carrying developers.
> >
> Unnghhh...
> 'Card-carrying' sounds
On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 09:40:45AM +0300, Lauri Tischler wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> >
> > > I think the security secretary, if we have one, should be a Debian
> > > developer.
> >
> > We have two of them, and they are both card-carrying developers.
> >
> Unnghhh...
> 'Card-carrying' sound
Matt Zimmerman wrote:
>
> > I think the security secretary, if we have one, should be a Debian
> > developer.
>
> We have two of them, and they are both card-carrying developers.
>
Unnghhh...
'Card-carrying' sounds like fiery-eyed anarchist or extreme left
revolutionary, some kind of luddite the
On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 09:40:45AM +0300, Lauri Tischler wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> >
> > > I think the security secretary, if we have one, should be a Debian
> > > developer.
> >
> > We have two of them, and they are both card-carrying developers.
> >
> Unnghhh...
> 'Card-carrying' sound
On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 09:40:45AM +0300, Lauri Tischler wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> >
> > > I think the security secretary, if we have one, should be a Debian
> > > developer.
> >
> > We have two of them, and they are both card-carrying developers.
> >
> Unnghhh...
> 'Card-carrying' soun
Matt Zimmerman wrote:
>
> > I think the security secretary, if we have one, should be a Debian
> > developer.
>
> We have two of them, and they are both card-carrying developers.
>
Unnghhh...
'Card-carrying' sounds like fiery-eyed anarchist or extreme left
revolutionary, some kind of luddite th
Are they both around 20 years of age and steaming hot ? - like the ones we
all hope wish we had as receptionists in our corps ? =)
-xbud
On Sunday 21 October 2001 04:52 pm, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 09:23:03AM -0700, Thoma
Are they both around 20 years of age and steaming hot ? - like the ones we
all hope wish we had as receptionists in our corps ? =)
-xbud
On Sunday 21 October 2001 04:52 pm, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 09:23:03AM -0700, Thom
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 09:23:03AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>
> > Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Q: Is a requirement being a Debian developer?
> > >
> > >No. It is my understanding that it would be good to have "f
On Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 09:23:03AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Q: Is a requirement being a Debian developer?
> >
> >No. It is my understanding that it would be good to have "fresh
> >blood" in the team. Working on security can c
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 09:23:03AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>
> > Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Q: Is a requirement being a Debian developer?
> > >
> > >No. It is my understanding that it would be good to have "
On Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 09:23:03AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Q: Is a requirement being a Debian developer?
> >
> >No. It is my understanding that it would be good to have "fresh
> >blood" in the team. Working on security can
Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Q: Is a requirement being a Debian developer?
>
>No. It is my understanding that it would be good to have "fresh
>blood" in the team. Working on security can cost a lot of time,
>thus it could even be helpful not being a Debian developer
Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Q: Is a requirement being a Debian developer?
>
>No. It is my understanding that it would be good to have "fresh
>blood" in the team. Working on security can cost a lot of time,
>thus it could even be helpful not being a Debian developer
I'm awfully sorry for the delay, but I wasn't able to work on this
earlier again.
Here's a list of questions and answers that came up with the posting I
made last week.
Q: Is a requirement being a Debian developer?
No. It is my understanding that it would be good to have "fresh
blood" in
I'm awfully sorry for the delay, but I wasn't able to work on this
earlier again.
Here's a list of questions and answers that came up with the posting I
made last week.
Q: Is a requirement being a Debian developer?
No. It is my understanding that it would be good to have "fresh
blood" in
54 matches
Mail list logo
