On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 12:04:03AM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
Having a single debconf was a good idea when it was first started
in Bordeaux. Since then things have changed, there is more apparent
demand for conferences and more reluctance to travel.
It appears that I not be in the majority
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 07:25:19AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
It's a bit more complicated than that.
[...]
Thanks for the clarifications.
While it may be true that ALS would have gone belly-up anyway along with
so many other innocent bystanders to the dot-com bust, I think a the
decision to
On Sat, May 24, 2003 at 01:41:56AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
True enough, but since USENIX took over Atlanta Linux Showcase, ran it
for one year, and then shot it in the back of a head like a drug kingpin
assassinating an unwanted lieutenant, Debian developers in the U.S.,
particularly
On Sunday, May 25, 2003, at 08:10 PM, Jonathan Oxer wrote:
Maybe a reasonable compromise would be to have 2 'official' debconfs /
year, as 'Debconf North' and 'Debconf South' (as in Northern and
Southern hemisphere).
I've got no problem with this. I wouldn't really even have any problem
with a
On Mon, 26 May 2003 23:43, Joe Drew wrote:
On Sunday, May 25, 2003, at 08:10 PM, Jonathan Oxer wrote:
Maybe a reasonable compromise would be to have 2 'official' debconfs /
year, as 'Debconf North' and 'Debconf South' (as in Northern and
Southern hemisphere).
I've got no problem with
On Sat, 2003-05-24 at 15:27, Brian May wrote:
On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 05:25:29PM -0400, Joe Drew wrote:
Do we need some method of deciding what constitutes 'the' Debconf?
No, as everyone knows that the only true Debconf are the ones in
Australia, with LCA.
Hehe, preach it brother ;-)
On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 05:25:29PM -0400, Joe Drew wrote:
Do we need some method of deciding what constitutes 'the' Debconf?
No, as everyone knows that the only true Debconf are the ones in
Australia, with LCA.
;-).
--
Brian May [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 10:02:42PM -0400, David B Harris wrote:
The problem is that people who can get expenses reimbursed need to have
a focus. Sponsors need to have a focus. There needs to be a major
conference for these kinds of things; in other words, it has to be
billed as something more
* Joe Drew ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030524 01:11]:
It's not entirely clear to me what makes Debconf into 'the' Debian
conference. For example, if this conference in the US ends up
happening, what's to say it isn't Debconf 3? The defining
characteristics, so far as I can define them
it to 2004.
It's not entirely clear to me what makes Debconf into 'the' Debian
conference. For example, if this conference in the US ends up
happening, what's to say it isn't Debconf 3? The defining
characteristics, so far as I can define them, are that it is annual,
and Debian developers go
Do we need some method of deciding what constitutes 'the' Debconf?
Or maybe we need to be more freeform. There is no inherent betterness of
say the Oslo conference over one held near Washington, DC. Maybe there are 4
of them one year and only one the next. Maybe we start holding one every
On Fri, 23 May 2003 17:33:58 -0700
Sean 'Shaleh' Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Debconf is about Debian developers trying to meet other devels and users.
Its about trying to make us a stronger organization. Its about hacking and
all of the other reasons we love Debian.
Treating it like a
12 matches
Mail list logo
