Problem with partnership form

2016-03-05 Thread martin f krafft
Hello, I was told the following about a problem with the form to register as a new partner: I have been trying to submit a proposal to become a Debian partner here: https://www.debian.org/partners/partners-form Unfortunately, once I have filled out the form and hit submit, I get this: “F

Bug#816159: www.debian.org: new introduction for blends page

2016-03-05 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
Hi Ana, Quoting Ana Custura (2016-03-05 20:23:36) > Hi all, > > On 05/03/16 14:01, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > >>> Of course, the information can be rephrased and moved if one wants >>> to put less emphasis on it (for more emphasis elsewhere). For >>> instance, we could add something like "Debian

Bug#816159: www.debian.org: new introduction for blends page

2016-03-05 Thread Ana Custura
Hi all, On 05/03/16 14:01, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: >> Of course, the information can be rephrased and moved if one wants to put >> less >> emphasis on it (for more emphasis elsewhere). For instance, we could add >> something like "Debian Pure Blends are developed, distributed and supported >> f

Bug#816159: www.debian.org: new introduction for blends page

2016-03-05 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
Quoting Charles Plessy (2016-03-05 14:28:54) > Le Sat, Mar 05, 2016 at 03:12:36PM +0800, Paul Wise a écrit : >> On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 1:02 PM, Iain R. Learmonth wrote: >>> On 01/03/16 13:18, Charles Plessy wrote: By the way, I do not see the paragraph starting by "Debian Pure Blends are

Bug#816159: www.debian.org: new introduction for blends page

2016-03-05 Thread Charles Plessy
Le Sat, Mar 05, 2016 at 03:12:36PM +0800, Paul Wise a écrit : > On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 1:02 PM, Iain R. Learmonth wrote: > > On 01/03/16 13:18, Charles Plessy wrote: > >> By the way, I do not see the paragraph starting by "Debian Pure Blends are > >> not > >> forks from" in your proposal. Are you

Bug#816159: www.debian.org: new introduction for blends page

2016-03-05 Thread Iain R. Learmonth
Hi Paul, On 05/03/16 07:28, Paul Wise wrote: >> I've committed the first paragraph and the changes to the second one >> that were missed. I have removed the first paragraph that you added. I agree with Charles entirely. If you still feel that it doesn't make sense to jump into directly, then it n