On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 07:59:57PM +0100 or thereabouts, Andrew Saunders wrote:
> On 9/26/06, Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >This appears only relevant to assets and The Debian project as a whole.
>
> How so? Personally, I'd say that the listmasters are clearly
> "individual Developer(s)
Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 03:21:14PM +0100 or thereabouts, Andrew Saunders wr=
> ote:
> > On 9/26/06, Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >It's a non-issue.
> >
> > I agree. However much you might wish it, list policy is not determined
> > by plebiscite.
>
On Tuesday, September 26, 2006 1:17 PM -0500, David Jardine wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 07:53:21PM -0500, Seth Goodman wrote:
>
> > [...]
>
> > I think the following would make Debian lists better for everyone:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > 3) allow users to temporarily turn off list mail
> >
> Once
On 9/26/06, Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This appears only relevant to assets and The Debian project as a whole.
How so? Personally, I'd say that the listmasters are clearly
"individual Developer(s) working on a particular task" who may "make
any technical or nontechnical decision with r
On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 07:53:21PM -0500, Seth Goodman wrote:
> [...]
> I think the following would make Debian lists better for everyone:
>
> [...]
>
> 3) allow users to temporarily turn off list mail
>
Once you've got used to how a mailing list works, which the above
users presumably have,
On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 06:05:10PM +0100 or thereabouts, Andrew Saunders wrote:
> On 9/26/06, Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >It should be, pretty much everything else in the Debian Project calls
> >for votes in order for a consensus.
>
> Heh - not quite. :-) The Constitution [1] spells o
On 9/26/06, Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It should be, pretty much everything else in the Debian Project calls
for votes in order for a consensus.
Heh - not quite. :-) The Constitution [1] spells out the
organisational structure for formal decision-making within the
Project. Have a read;
On 9/26/06, Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It's a non-issue.
I agree. However much you might wish it, list policy is not determined
by plebiscite.
--
Andrew Saunders
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 03:21:14PM +0100 or thereabouts, Andrew Saunders wrote:
> On 9/26/06, Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >It's a non-issue.
>
> I agree. However much you might wish it, list policy is not determined
> by plebiscite.
Hi Andrew:
Thanks for your comments.
It should be,
On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 03:35:27AM +0100 or thereabouts, Andrew Saunders wrote:
> On 9/24/06, Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Why don't such things ever get submitted for a vote, to see exactly
> >where the membership stands on this ?
>
> I would guess that the vast majority of those who
On Monday, September 25, 2006 8:08 PM -0500, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> IIRC, the Debian lists are powered by mailman. Have they just
> disabled this functionality, or is it a technical/political issue?
If they use Mailman, there is a feature to allow users to determine
whether they receive lis
On 9/24/06, Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Why don't such things ever get submitted for a vote, to see exactly
where the membership stands on this ?
I would guess that the vast majority of those who post without being
subscribed don't follow the list except to monitor follow-ups to their
o
On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 07:53:21PM -0500 or thereabouts, Seth Goodman wrote:
> I think the following would make Debian lists better for everyone:
>
> 1) allow users to subscribe for posting only,
>
> 2) require users to subscribe before posting and
>
> 3) allow users to temporarily turn off lis
On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 07:53:21PM -0500, Seth Goodman wrote:
>
> I think the following would make Debian lists better for everyone:
>
> 1) allow users to subscribe for posting only,
>
IIRC, the Debian lists are powered by mailman. Have they just disabled
this functionality, or is it a technica
On Sunday, September 24, 2006 8:34 AM -0500, Stephen wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 23, 2006 at 01:22:30PM -0500 or thereabouts, Seth
> Goodman wrote:
>
> > You are right in saying there is no apparent way to subscribe
> > without getting all the list traffic. Without this feature, it
> > is impractical to
On Sun, 2006-09-24 at 09:34 -0400, Stephen wrote:
> One can endlessly debate the issue, but at the end of the day, if the
> majority wish this to be implemented, then it should be done. The views of a
> few, should never outweigh those of the majority, and it doesn't in the
> slightest prevent pe
On Sat, Sep 23, 2006 at 01:22:30PM -0500 or thereabouts, Seth Goodman wrote:
> You are right in saying there is no apparent way to subscribe without
> getting all the list traffic. Without this feature, it is impractical
> to require that posters first confirm their email address.
Why ? I don't
On Friday, September 22, 2006 12:15 PM -0500, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> "Seth Goodman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, September 21, 2006 3:38 PM -0500, Andrei Popescu
> > wrote:
> >
> > > It's not nice to require *everybody* to receive 100-150
> > > mails/day just for a simple answer.
On 9/22/06, Andrei Popescu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Seth Goodman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday, September 21, 2006 3:38 PM -0500, Andrei Popescu wrote:
>
> > It's not nice to require *everybody* to receive 100-150 mails/day
> > just for a simple answer.
>
> There's no reason you h
"Seth Goodman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday, September 21, 2006 3:38 PM -0500, Andrei Popescu wrote:
>
> > It's not nice to require *everybody* to receive 100-150 mails/day
> > just for a simple answer.
>
> There's no reason you have to receive list traffic. You can already do
> thi
On Thursday, September 21, 2006 3:38 PM -0500, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> It's not nice to require *everybody* to receive 100-150 mails/day
> just for a simple answer.
There's no reason you have to receive list traffic. You can already do
this if you subscribe via email. There is no reason the web
"Seth Goodman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday, September 21, 2006 1:44 PM -0500, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
> wrote:
>
> > I don't think that closing mailing lists is the right way to fight
> against spam.
>
> The question is whether requiring a user to answer one confirmation
> message be
On Thursday, September 21, 2006 1:44 PM -0500, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
wrote:
> I don't think that closing mailing lists is the right way to fight
against spam.
The question is whether requiring a user to answer one confirmation
message before posting is any real burden. You have to send mail to
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 08:43:30PM +0200 or thereabouts, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
wrote:
> On 21.09.06 12:39, Stephen wrote:
> > It's not appropriate in my view, to allow anyone to post to debian-user,
> > without first subscribing. Apparently, anyone can post to debian-user,
> > without needing to
On 21.09.06 12:39, Stephen wrote:
> It's not appropriate in my view, to allow anyone to post to debian-user,
> without first subscribing. Apparently, anyone can post to debian-user,
> without needing to do that step. I don't buy the argument that it's too
> much of a hurdle to expect a newbie to de
25 matches
Mail list logo
