Le Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 09:37:23PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava écrivait:
> I am certain many Bay area restaurants in silicon valley may
> also qualify. But that does not give Debian the right to determine
> policy for the restaurant.
Strictly speaking, it's not exactly the same. A restaurant
Le Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 09:39:18PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava écrivait:
> You are asking the wrong people here. Ask the owners of th4e
> resource -- the OPN folks.
OPN people have replied here. They say that it's up to Wichert (who is
technically channel counder) ... So he has the right to d
>>"Raphael" == Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raphael> The fact is that Debian is not in charge of it. But it's a common
Raphael> gathering place for many Debian developers ...
I am certain many Bay area restaurants in silicon valley may
also qualify. But that does not g
>>"Raphael" == Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raphael> Great, I'm glad to hear that what I said is only common
Raphael> sense. Now if you can convince the operator in question to
Raphael> respect that common sense, i may have no problem stopping
Raphael> here with the GR.
Raphae
>>"Raphael" == Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raphael> If you don't think that it's up to you to decide, what is the correct
Raphael> way to decide the policy for the channel ?
You are asking the wrong people here. Ask the owners of th4e
resource -- the OPN folks.
>>"Raphael" == Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raphael> The fact is that Debian is not in charge of it. But it's a common
Raphael> gathering place for many Debian developers ...
I am certain many Bay area restaurants in silicon valley may
also qualify. But that does not
>>"Raphael" == Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raphael> Great, I'm glad to hear that what I said is only common
Raphael> sense. Now if you can convince the operator in question to
Raphael> respect that common sense, i may have no problem stopping
Raphael> here with the GR.
Rapha
>>"Raphael" == Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raphael> If you don't think that it's up to you to decide, what is the correct
Raphael> way to decide the policy for the channel ?
You are asking the wrong people here. Ask the owners of th4e
resource -- the OPN folks.
On Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 03:56:58PM -0800, Luca Filipozzi wrote:
> Andrew is an irc operator (ircop) for Open Projects Network, as am I.
No I'm not. Where do people get that crazy idea from? :)
(Now, the dancer test network is another matter, but that's almost
never used...)
--
.''`. ** Debi
On Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 11:25:56PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Le Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 08:23:26PM +, Andrew Suffield écrivait:
> > #debian could also be considered a representative part of Debian in
> > the eyes of the casual visitor, but it is also in no way a Debian
> > resource. Take you
On Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 11:25:56PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> It's absolutely fantastic. Each person has its own opinion about who has
> the right to decide about this issue. Branden doesn't agree with you for
> example (ie he doesn't think that it's up to Wichert to decide) ...
Wichert has t
On Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 03:56:58PM -0800, Luca Filipozzi wrote:
> Andrew is an irc operator (ircop) for Open Projects Network, as am I.
No I'm not. Where do people get that crazy idea from? :)
(Now, the dancer test network is another matter, but that's almost
never used...)
--
.''`. ** Deb
Le Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 08:23:26PM +, Andrew Suffield écrivait:
> #debian could also be considered a representative part of Debian in
> the eyes of the casual visitor, but it is also in no way a Debian
> resource. Take your personal gripes up with the channel founder, which
> is currently Wiche
On Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 11:25:56PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Le Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 08:23:26PM +, Andrew Suffield écrivait:
> > #debian could also be considered a representative part of Debian in
> > the eyes of the casual visitor, but it is also in no way a Debian
> > resource. Take yo
On Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 11:25:56PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> It's absolutely fantastic. Each person has its own opinion about who has
> the right to decide about this issue. Branden doesn't agree with you for
> example (ie he doesn't think that it's up to Wichert to decide) ...
Wichert has
Le Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 08:23:26PM +, Andrew Suffield écrivait:
> #debian could also be considered a representative part of Debian in
> the eyes of the casual visitor, but it is also in no way a Debian
> resource. Take your personal gripes up with the channel founder, which
> is currently Wich
On Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 11:41:47AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> The fact is that Debian is not in charge of it. But it's a common
> gathering place for many Debian developers ... common enough to be
> mentionned in the presentation mail you get from elmo once you're
> a new debian developer.
>
On Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 11:41:47AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> The fact is that Debian is not in charge of it. But it's a common
> gathering place for many Debian developers ... common enough to be
> mentionned in the presentation mail you get from elmo once you're
> a new debian developer.
>
Le Mon, Nov 05, 2001 at 12:26:44AM +1000, Anthony Towns écrivait:
> On Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 03:03:39PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > I'm only annoyed with the fact that #debian-devel ought to be for
> > person interested in Debian's development and not only for Debian
> > developers.
>
> Again
On Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 03:03:39PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> I'm only annoyed with the fact that #debian-devel ought to be for
> person interested in Debian's development and not only for Debian
> developers.
Again, saying it doesn't make it true.
You might consider the fact that #debian-de
Le Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 09:36:00PM +1000, Anthony Towns écrivait:
> be actually talking about whatever it is that bothers you, like where
> -private topics can be discussed other than -private, or what other ways
I'm really not bothered about that. There's enough self-regulation
because when someo
Le Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 06:38:40AM -0500, Branden Robinson écrivait:
> > Great, I'm glad to hear that what I said is only common sense. Now if
> > you can convince the operator in question to respect that common sense,
> > i may have no problem stopping here with the GR.
>
> I suggest you try and
Le Mon, Nov 05, 2001 at 12:26:44AM +1000, Anthony Towns écrivait:
> On Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 03:03:39PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > I'm only annoyed with the fact that #debian-devel ought to be for
> > person interested in Debian's development and not only for Debian
> > developers.
>
> Agai
On Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 03:03:39PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> I'm only annoyed with the fact that #debian-devel ought to be for
> person interested in Debian's development and not only for Debian
> developers.
Again, saying it doesn't make it true.
You might consider the fact that #debian-d
Le Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 09:36:00PM +1000, Anthony Towns écrivait:
> be actually talking about whatever it is that bothers you, like where
> -private topics can be discussed other than -private, or what other ways
I'm really not bothered about that. There's enough self-regulation
because when some
Le Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 06:38:40AM -0500, Branden Robinson écrivait:
> > Great, I'm glad to hear that what I said is only common sense. Now if
> > you can convince the operator in question to respect that common sense,
> > i may have no problem stopping here with the GR.
>
> I suggest you try and
> "Peter" == Peter Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Peter> Does it or does it not say that there is a irc-channel only
Peter> for developers approved by the project?
It's unclear to me whether it says or does not say this.
On Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 11:32:19AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Great, I'm glad to hear that what I said is only common sense. Now if
> you can convince the operator in question to respect that common sense,
> i may have no problem stopping here with the GR.
I suggest you try and scare up anyon
> "Raphael" == Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raphael> Le Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 12:34:36PM +1000, Anthony Towns
Raphael> écrivait:
>> Obviously Debian's the sort of project where there're going to
>> be a bunch of people who won't accept that, for whatever
>> re
On Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 11:32:19AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Great, I'm glad to hear that what I said is only common sense.
*snort* What you've said is a meaningless tautology, evidently of
the sort which everyone agrees to without thinking, and then has an
amiguity reinterpreted for someon
Le Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 12:15:30AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava écrivait:
> I am not sure why we need this policy in Debian. After all,
> the IRC channel in question are not run on Debian resources. The
> owners of the channel may allow volunteers who happen to also be
> Debian developers be
Le Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 12:34:36PM +1000, Anthony Towns écrivait:
> Obviously Debian's the sort of project where there're going to be a
> bunch of people who won't accept that, for whatever reasons, but it
> strikes me as a bad idea to go around officially ratifying everything
> that's common sense
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There is no such GR pending, unless you interpret Raphael's that way
> (which wouldn't make a lot of sense).
Does it or does it not say that there is a irc-channel only for
developers approved by the project?
--
Når folk spørger mig, om jeg er nørd
On Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 10:39:41AM +0100, Peter Makholm wrote:
> I would oppose to any GR making Debian a little more closed both in
> reality and in how people looks at us.
There is no such GR pending, unless you interpret Raphael's that way
(which wouldn't make a lot of sense).
--
G. Branden R
Anthony Towns writes:
> Shall we next have a GR that says:
>
> [ ] I accept that the sky is blue, and that things that my attempt to pass
> though it (such as aeroplanes and rockets) must obey the law of gravity.
Seconded!
> For example, if we've specifically ratified #debian-private on
> o
> "Peter" == Peter Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Peter> Does it or does it not say that there is a irc-channel only
Peter> for developers approved by the project?
It's unclear to me whether it says or does not say this.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a su
On Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 11:32:19AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Great, I'm glad to hear that what I said is only common sense. Now if
> you can convince the operator in question to respect that common sense,
> i may have no problem stopping here with the GR.
I suggest you try and scare up anyo
> "Raphael" == Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raphael> Le Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 12:34:36PM +1000, Anthony Towns
Raphael> écrivait:
>> Obviously Debian's the sort of project where there're going to
>> be a bunch of people who won't accept that, for whatever
>> r
On Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 11:32:19AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Great, I'm glad to hear that what I said is only common sense.
*snort* What you've said is a meaningless tautology, evidently of
the sort which everyone agrees to without thinking, and then has an
amiguity reinterpreted for someo
Le Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 12:15:30AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava écrivait:
> I am not sure why we need this policy in Debian. After all,
> the IRC channel in question are not run on Debian resources. The
> owners of the channel may allow volunteers who happen to also be
> Debian developers b
Le Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 12:34:36PM +1000, Anthony Towns écrivait:
> Obviously Debian's the sort of project where there're going to be a
> bunch of people who won't accept that, for whatever reasons, but it
> strikes me as a bad idea to go around officially ratifying everything
> that's common sens
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There is no such GR pending, unless you interpret Raphael's that way
> (which wouldn't make a lot of sense).
Does it or does it not say that there is a irc-channel only for
developers approved by the project?
--
Når folk spørger mig, om jeg er nør
On Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 10:39:41AM +0100, Peter Makholm wrote:
> I would oppose to any GR making Debian a little more closed both in
> reality and in how people looks at us.
There is no such GR pending, unless you interpret Raphael's that way
(which wouldn't make a lot of sense).
--
G. Branden
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Shall we next have a GR that says:
>
> [ ] I accept that the sky is blue, and that things that my attempt to pass
> though it (such as aeroplanes and rockets) must obey the law of gravity.
Seconded!
> For example, if we've specifically ratified #d
Hi,
I am not sure why we need this policy in Debian. After all,
the IRC channel in question are not run on Debian resources. The
owners of the channel may allow volunteers who happen to also be
Debian developers be in charge of the channel, but, Debian is not in
charge. By all means g
45 matches
Mail list logo
