On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 12:42:27AM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>
> On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>
> > > I recall only ever finding two violations of the above, and I assure you I
> > > had their accounts locked within the hour, and they were ultimately
> > > expelled from the pro
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 12:42:27AM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>
> On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>
> > > I recall only ever finding two violations of the above, and I assure you I
> > > had their accounts locked within the hour, and they were ultimately
> > > expelled from the pro
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > I recall only ever finding two violations of the above, and I assure you I
> > had their accounts locked within the hour, and they were ultimately
> > expelled from the project.
> If you were to follow debian-legal, you'd find that this sort of th
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > I recall only ever finding two violations of the above, and I assure you I
> > had their accounts locked within the hour, and they were ultimately
> > expelled from the project.
> If you were to follow debian-legal, you'd find that this sort of th
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 12:49:22AM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > You must not send via email any item which it is illegal to send or
> > possess.
> > You must not send (via email) or post Copyright material or
> > Intellectual Property unless you have permission to do so.
>
> I recall only eve
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 12:49:22AM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > You must not send via email any item which it is illegal to send or
> > possess.
> > You must not send (via email) or post Copyright material or
> > Intellectual Property unless you have permission to do so.
>
> I recall only eve
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Because it contains several clauses that are never enforced. That
> means "it breaks the DMUP" is clearly not grounds for disciplinary
> action (DSA doesn't *need* grounds for disciplinary action, so they
> don't appear to be concerned by this). There
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Because it contains several clauses that are never enforced. That
> means "it breaks the DMUP" is clearly not grounds for disciplinary
> action (DSA doesn't *need* grounds for disciplinary action, so they
> don't appear to be concerned by this). There
On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 02:39:55AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> These ones in particular are ignored on a fairly regular basis, off
> the top of my head:
[...]
> You must not send via email any item which it is illegal to send or
> possess.
>
> You must not send (via email) or post Copyright
On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 02:39:55AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> These ones in particular are ignored on a fairly regular basis, off
> the top of my head:
[...]
> You must not send via email any item which it is illegal to send or
> possess.
>
> You must not send (via email) or post Copyright
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:20:57PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:39:17PM +1100, Sam Johnston wrote:
> I think the main problem of the DMUP WRT @d.o is the sole coverage of
> *incoming* mail, thus stating (at least to me) that it's more about
> being bandwidth-aware than b
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 11:58:47AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Since the DMUP is
> effectively a policy statement of the DSA team, would they necessarily
> be bound to enforce the amended version?
They don't really enforce the current version, so... no.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | An
On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 02:46:26AM +1100, Sam Johnston wrote:
> >>The DMUP is a load of crap.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Oh, and it has all the teeth of an amoeba
> Why?
Because it contains several clauses that are never enforced. That
means "it breaks the DMUP" is clearly not grounds for disciplinary
a
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:20:57PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:39:17PM +1100, Sam Johnston wrote:
> I think the main problem of the DMUP WRT @d.o is the sole coverage of
> *incoming* mail, thus stating (at least to me) that it's more about
> being bandwidth-aware than b
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 11:58:47AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Since the DMUP is
> effectively a policy statement of the DSA team, would they necessarily
> be bound to enforce the amended version?
They don't really enforce the current version, so... no.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | An
On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 02:46:26AM +1100, Sam Johnston wrote:
> >>The DMUP is a load of crap.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Oh, and it has all the teeth of an amoeba
> Why?
Because it contains several clauses that are never enforced. That
means "it breaks the DMUP" is clearly not grounds for disciplinary
a
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 04:52:40PM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> This seems like a solution in search of a problem. Is there actually a
> problem with Debian developers using their debian.org email addresses to
> confer false legitimacy on themselves?
Yes; see debian-private for the last month
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 04:52:40PM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> This seems like a solution in search of a problem. Is there actually a
> problem with Debian developers using their debian.org email addresses to
> confer false legitimacy on themselves?
Yes; see debian-private for the last month
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 11:58:47AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Since the DMUP is
> effectively a policy statement of the DSA team, would they necessarily
> be bound to enforce the amended version? If they wouldn't, is there any
> benefit to attaching this to the DMUP?
4. The Developers by way
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 11:58:47AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Since the DMUP is
> effectively a policy statement of the DSA team, would they necessarily
> be bound to enforce the amended version? If they wouldn't, is there any
> benefit to attaching this to the DMUP?
4. The Developers by way
Sam Johnston wrote:
This provides a clear definition of what I consider acceptable use of
@debian.org addresses. For the sake of brevity I have not allowed for
exceptions like use in curriculum vitaes or on software not included in
Debian as I consider them unnecessary. Free email addresses are
Sam Johnston wrote:
This provides a clear definition of what I consider acceptable use of
@debian.org addresses. For the sake of brevity I have not allowed for
exceptions like use in curriculum vitaes or on software not included in
Debian as I consider them unnecessary. Free email addresses are re
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:39:17PM +1100, Sam Johnston wrote:
> I propose the following resolution:
>
> That the Debian Machine Usage Policies[1] (DMUP) be amended as follows:
> 1. That the Mail/News section be modified to
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:39:17PM +1100, Sam Johnston wrote:
> I propose the following resolution:
>
> That the Debian Machine Usage Policies[1] (DMUP) be amended as follows:
> 1. That the Mail/News section be modified to
Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:14:13PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
The DMUP is a loosely written document in its current form. It also offers
'examples of what we consider net abuse', which I don't believe should exist
in such a policy - rather, a concise list of what is
Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:14:13PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
The DMUP is a loosely written document in its current form. It also offers
'examples of what we consider net abuse', which I don't believe should exist
in such a policy - rather, a concise list of what is pe
Il sab, 2004-01-24 alle 07:39, Sam Johnston ha scritto:
> I propose the following resolution:
>
>
> That the Debian Machine Usage Policies[1] (DMUP) be amended as follows:
>
> 1. That the Mail/News section be modified to r
Il sab, 2004-01-24 alle 07:39, Sam Johnston ha scritto:
> I propose the following resolution:
>
>
> That the Debian Machine Usage Policies[1] (DMUP) be amended as follows:
>
> 1. That the Mail/News section be modified to r
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:14:13PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > The DMUP is a loosely written document in its current form. It also offers
> > 'examples of what we consider net abuse', which I don't believe should exist
> > in such a policy - rather, a concise list of what is permitted with al
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 07:53:38PM +1100, Sam Johnston wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 07:18:22AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:39:17PM +1100, Sam Johnston wrote:
> > > Incoming mail is to be used only for tasks related to Debian or to
> > > packages
> > > in the De
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:14:13PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > The DMUP is a loosely written document in its current form. It also offers
> > 'examples of what we consider net abuse', which I don't believe should exist
> > in such a policy - rather, a concise list of what is permitted with al
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:39:17PM +1100, Sam Johnston wrote:
>
> That the Debian Machine Usage Policies[1] (DMUP) be amended as follows:
>
> 1. That the Mail/News section be modified to read:
>
> Using Debian machines for
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 07:53:38PM +1100, Sam Johnston wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 07:18:22AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:39:17PM +1100, Sam Johnston wrote:
> > > Incoming mail is to be used only for tasks related to Debian or to packages
> > > in the Debian ar
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:39:17PM +1100, Sam Johnston wrote:
>
> That the Debian Machine Usage Policies[1] (DMUP) be amended as follows:
>
> 1. That the Mail/News section be modified to read:
>
> Using Debian machines for
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 07:18:22AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:39:17PM +1100, Sam Johnston wrote:
> > Incoming mail is to be used only for tasks related to Debian or to packages
> > in the Debian archive (including those for which an ITP has been filed).
>
> I object
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 07:18:22AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:39:17PM +1100, Sam Johnston wrote:
> > Incoming mail is to be used only for tasks related to Debian or to packages
> > in the Debian archive (including those for which an ITP has been filed).
>
> I object
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:39:17PM +1100, Sam Johnston wrote:
> Incoming mail is to be used only for tasks related to Debian or to packages
> in the Debian archive (including those for which an ITP has been filed).
I object to this and cannot comply with it. No developer can control
their incoming
I propose the following resolution:
That the Debian Machine Usage Policies[1] (DMUP) be amended as follows:
1. That the Mail/News section be modified to read:
Using Debian machines for reading mail is OK, please choose a
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:39:17PM +1100, Sam Johnston wrote:
> Incoming mail is to be used only for tasks related to Debian or to packages
> in the Debian archive (including those for which an ITP has been filed).
I object to this and cannot comply with it. No developer can control
their incoming
I propose the following resolution:
That the Debian Machine Usage Policies[1] (DMUP) be amended as follows:
1. That the Mail/News section be modified to read:
Using Debian machines for reading mail is OK, please choose a
40 matches
Mail list logo
