On Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 10:29:37AM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> #include
> * Branden Robinson [Fri, Mar 07 2003, 03:23:37PM]:
> > On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 11:37:15AM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> > > Perhaps it is more a matter of not demonstrating that you have listened.
> >
> > Well, I don't think t
On Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 10:29:37AM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> #include
> * Branden Robinson [Fri, Mar 07 2003, 03:23:37PM]:
> > On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 11:37:15AM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> > > Perhaps it is more a matter of not demonstrating that you have listened.
> >
> > Well, I don't think t
On Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 10:29:37AM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> Well, I do think so. You ignored my proposal completely and
> answered-in-a-detailed-manner to Osamu and did the same: nothing.
Again, demonstrably untrue:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2002/debian-devel-200211/msg00689.html
On Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 10:29:37AM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> Well, I do think so. You ignored my proposal completely and
> answered-in-a-detailed-manner to Osamu and did the same: nothing.
Again, demonstrably untrue:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2002/debian-devel-200211/msg00689.html
#include
* Branden Robinson [Fri, Mar 07 2003, 03:23:37PM]:
> On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 11:37:15AM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 12:24:20PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 04:30:43PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > > > That is not only about me - you
#include
* Branden Robinson [Fri, Mar 07 2003, 03:23:37PM]:
> On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 11:37:15AM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 12:24:20PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 04:30:43PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > > > That is not only about me - you
On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 11:37:15AM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 12:24:20PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 04:30:43PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > > That is not only about me - you did not listen to any other person
> > > showing you a way to change
On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 11:37:15AM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 12:24:20PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 04:30:43PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > > That is not only about me - you did not listen to any other person
> > > showing you a way to change
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 12:24:20PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 04:30:43PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > That is not only about me - you did not listen to any other person
> > showing you a way to change the current behaviour.
>
> Incorrect; I listened, though I disagr
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 12:24:20PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 04:30:43PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > That is not only about me - you did not listen to any other person
> > showing you a way to change the current behaviour.
>
> Incorrect; I listened, though I disagr
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 01:21:38PM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> When the Social Contract was originally drafted, the title "Our Priorities
> are Our Users and Free Software" was meant to strike a balance between meeting
> the needs of those who would use Debian and the idealism of the Free Softwar
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 04:30:43PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> That is not only about me - you did not listen to any other person
> showing you a way to change the current behaviour.
Incorrect; I listened, though I disagreed.
> > If you have that big a problem with my differing opinion, appeal t
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 01:21:38PM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> When the Social Contract was originally drafted, the title "Our Priorities
> are Our Users and Free Software" was meant to strike a balance between meeting
> the needs of those who would use Debian and the idealism of the Free Softwar
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 04:30:43PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> That is not only about me - you did not listen to any other person
> showing you a way to change the current behaviour.
Incorrect; I listened, though I disagreed.
> > If you have that big a problem with my differing opinion, appeal t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Oohara Yuuma) writes:
> can you tell me what "Our Users" in #4 of the social contract means?
When the Social Contract was originally drafted, the title "Our Priorities
are Our Users and Free Software" was meant to strike a balance between meeting
the needs of those who would u
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Oohara Yuuma) writes:
> can you tell me what "Our Users" in #4 of the social contract means?
When the Social Contract was originally drafted, the title "Our Priorities
are Our Users and Free Software" was meant to strike a balance between meeting
the needs of those who would u
#include
* Branden Robinson [Thu, Feb 27 2003, 09:09:20AM]:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 11:05:21AM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > Funny to hear it from someone still refusing to change few things to
> > improve useability on _small_ costs of mental consistency (remember
> > x-session-manager story).
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 11:05:21AM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> Funny to hear it from someone still refusing to change few things to
> improve useability on _small_ costs of mental consistency (remember
> x-session-manager story).
Again, a moral condemnation grounded upon my disagreement with you
#include
* Branden Robinson [Thu, Feb 27 2003, 09:09:20AM]:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 11:05:21AM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > Funny to hear it from someone still refusing to change few things to
> > improve useability on _small_ costs of mental consistency (remember
> > x-session-manager story).
* Oohara Yuuma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-02-27 12:48]:
> can you tell me what "Our Users" in #4 of the social contract means?
> Since Debian is not a market-share-seeking organization, we don't care
> about people who don't use Debian, so it seems a tautology.
You say that "we don't care about peo
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 11:05:21AM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> Funny to hear it from someone still refusing to change few things to
> improve useability on _small_ costs of mental consistency (remember
> x-session-manager story).
Again, a moral condemnation grounded upon my disagreement with you
* Oohara Yuuma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-02-27 12:48]:
> can you tell me what "Our Users" in #4 of the social contract means?
> Since Debian is not a market-share-seeking organization, we don't care
> about people who don't use Debian, so it seems a tautology.
You say that "we don't care about peo
#include
* Branden Robinson [Thu, Feb 27 2003, 04:25:34AM]:
> > can you tell me what "Our Users" in #4 of the social contract means?
> > Since Debian is not a market-share-seeking organization, we don't care
> > about people who don't use Debian, so it seems a tautology.
>
> I think it means tha
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 12:48:37PM +0900, Oohara Yuuma wrote:
> [see the "Future of Debian uncertain?" thread on -devel for background]
>
> Hello DPL candidates,
>
> can you tell me what "Our Users" in #4 of the social contract means?
> Since Debian is not a market-share-seeking organization, we
#include
* Branden Robinson [Thu, Feb 27 2003, 04:25:34AM]:
> > can you tell me what "Our Users" in #4 of the social contract means?
> > Since Debian is not a market-share-seeking organization, we don't care
> > about people who don't use Debian, so it seems a tautology.
>
> I think it means tha
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 12:48:37PM +0900, Oohara Yuuma wrote:
> [see the "Future of Debian uncertain?" thread on -devel for background]
>
> Hello DPL candidates,
>
> can you tell me what "Our Users" in #4 of the social contract means?
> Since Debian is not a market-share-seeking organization, we
26 matches
Mail list logo
