Re: debian as unix
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 01:05:31PM +0700, tre mor wrote: Debian 7.2 is conform with the Posix.1-2008/SUSv.4? If not, when will be? If you mean will it be 100% conforming, my guess is never. It's a pretty broad standard and reasonably out-dated. Debian is also dependent on what upstreams do or don't do. The bits I've looked into are the utilites, because that's the space I play in. I can tell you that nothing is 100% compliant, but we don't go out of our way to not be either. As a guideline its ok, but for my area that's about it. That doesn't mean there are other parts of the standard that are completely awesome; I just don't read those parts. - Craig -- Craig Small (@smallsees) http://enc.com.au/ csmall at : enc.com.au Debian GNU/Linux http://www.debian.org/ csmall at : debian.org GPG fingerprint:5D2F B320 B825 D939 04D2 0519 3938 F96B DF50 FEA5 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20140223114346.gb6...@enc.com.au
Re: Proposed MBF - mentions of the word Ubuntu
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 02:15:35AM -0500, Chuck Peters wrote: On 11/08/2013 12:35 PM, Ian Jackson wrote: But nevertheless, I would like to suggest that the DPL contact Mark Shuttleworth and tell him that this kind of shit is very damaging to our good relationship.) It also makes me glad I'm part of Debian and that Debian is still important Mark Shuttleworth wrote: [...] Update: Steve George from Canonical had already responded at Mark got it (either always did or did later), Steve at the time of that blog post still doesn't get the problem. You can see the different responses to both shows that too. Sigh, maybe Icentu time :) - Craig -- Craig Small VK2XLZ http://enc.com.au/ csmall at : enc.com.au Debian GNU/Linux http://www.debian.org/ csmall at : debian.org GPG fingerprint: 5D2F B320 B825 D939 04D2 0519 3938 F96B DF50 FEA5 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131110110610.gb31...@enc.com.au
Re: Developers per country (2013)
On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 08:02:11PM +0300, Boris Pek wrote: First, let's see how the number of active developers and population are really related. The correlation coefficients are: 0.10 (2013), 0.09 (2012), 0.09 (2011), 0.08 (2010). Very low, unfortunately. But it was predictable... And going lower too. The correlation coefficients between the number of active developers and GDP: 0.60 (2013), 0.60 (2012). Hey, it looks much better! So... if we want more Debian developers, try to increase a countries GDP and don't bother with its population; perhaps. I wonder what causes this. Thanks, I found it interesting in any case. - Craig -- Craig Small VK2XLZ http://enc.com.au/ csmall at : enc.com.au Debian GNU/Linux http://www.debian.org/ csmall at : debian.org GPG fingerprint: 5D2F B320 B825 D939 04D2 0519 3938 F96B DF50 FEA5 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130811000953.ga22...@enc.com.au
Re: mjg59's blog on planet.d.o
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 01:38:03PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: Would people like me to push my entire blog to Planet Debian, including all my book reviews and software release announcements? As one who evenly enjoys the technical package type blog entries along with lets call it other stuff Debian people blog about I'd say sure why not. I've done that in the past. As a general comment, I'm happy with the general collection of entries on planet.d.o Sure there might be the occasional one i don't agree with but it is a seriously low level of entries. - Craig -- Craig Small VK2XLZ http://enc.com.au/ csmall at : enc.com.au Debian GNU/Linux http://www.debian.org/ csmall at : debian.org GPG fingerprint: 5D2F B320 B825 D939 04D2 0519 3938 F96B DF50 FEA5 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121030213758.ga17...@enc.com.au
Re: RFC - Changing current policy of debian.net entries
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 11:01:56PM +0200, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote: While the current practice is useful for the introduction of unofficial project services, it may involve certain risks. One risk is that outsiders can not and will not distinguish between debian.net and debian.org entries. Another risk is that those unofficial services will stall if the maintainer who 'owns' those entries leaves the project. We are also observing domain-squatting in the debian.net zone. I like the reasons behind it but not the result. The problems you mentioned are real and need to be addressed. Whatever the domain or subdomain is, it should be clearly marked with some message on both the top level part (eg debian.net/www.debian.net) as well as the child sites with some sort of message. Maybe even something generated to say who is responsible for what subdomain (yes I know dig tells you, but the website could too!) If debian.net is too close to debian.org then I would suggest using a different domain rather than sub-subdomains. Other projects do have this difference, wordpress being one. People will get confused no matter what you do. I quite like the debian.net idea and what has come out of it. If the policy is weak, then I'd say tweak the policy. I'm not in favour of these large chain of domains, maybe I'm a lazy typer. In short: * If domain-squatting is a problem, make the policy define and ban it * If inappropriate content is a problem, make the policy define and ban it * If dead projects are a problem, make the policy define and ban it * If people go to website xyz.debian.org and you think they wont understand its not from the real debian, make the policy define what must be put on that site to reduce the confusion The thing that is banned/defined must be objective and must be around what could damage Debian, not what some people think is a waste of time. love.d.n is a perfect example, I liked it as did others, some probably did not; but in any case I don't think it should be banned. - Craig -- Craig Small VK2XLZ http://enc.com.au/ csmall at : enc.com.au Debian GNU/Linux http://www.debian.org/ csmall at : debian.org GPG fingerprint: 5D2F B320 B825 D939 04D2 0519 3938 F96B DF50 FEA5 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120624085007.gb26...@enc.com.au
Re: illegal logo
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 05:39:45PM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote: It's not a Debian logo. Not even close. I wouldn't go as far as not even close but they are a little bit different. Besides the colour change the swirl is, yes a swirl, but the tail ends in different places and the little dots are also in different spots and its a bit thicker. Is that the same enough I have no idea. To avoid further confusion, maybe it'd be a good idea to change our logo to something less silly. Sounds like its the rise of Captain Blue-Eye again! - Craig -- Craig Small VK2XLZ http://enc.com.au/ csmall at : enc.com.au Debian GNU/Linux http://www.debian.org/ csmall at : debian.org GPG fingerprint: 5D2F B320 B825 D939 04D2 0519 3938 F96B DF50 FEA5 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120422210412.ga17...@enc.com.au
Re: revenue sharing agreement with DuckDuckGo
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 10:26:18AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: - donating to Debian 25% of the income they make from inbound traffic that originates from Debian users if DDG is a search engine option in a web browser Now you have clarified its only this option I'm happy with this setup. It would be good to have some answers joeyh brings up about notification. - Craig -- Craig Small VK2XLZ http://enc.com.au/ csmall at : enc.com.au Debian GNU/Linux http://www.debian.org/ csmall at : debian.org GPG fingerprint: 5D2F B320 B825 D939 04D2 0519 3938 F96B DF50 FEA5 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: trademark licenses and DFSG: a summary
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 10:03:35AM +, Gervase Markham wrote: This software and its derivatives are endorsed by Gervase Markham, until such time as he withdraws that endorsement for a particular derivative. If he does so and informs the maintainer of that derivative, this paragraph must be removed from that derivative. Does the presence of those two sentences in a README make the software non-free? Yes it does. It fails the DFSG test. It is why some trademark licenses are a problem. Now, the only difference is the fix. For a license it is removing the package for a trademark it is renaming, maybe. Sentences like that are exactly why our proposed trademark policy should be what it is. - Craig -- Craig Small VK2XLZ http://enc.com.au/ csmall at : enc.com.au Debian GNU/Linux http://www.debian.org/ csmall at : debian.org GPG fingerprint: 5D2F B320 B825 D939 04D2 0519 3938 F96B DF50 FEA5 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120221200253.gd25...@enc.com.au
Re: trademark licenses and DFSG: a summary
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 03:09:56PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote: Craig Small csm...@debian.org writes: Now, the only difference is the fix. For a license it is removing the package for a trademark it is renaming, maybe. Sentences like that are exactly why our proposed trademark policy should be what it is. I'm confused. What distinction are you drawing of license versus trademark? Trademark holders can and do grant licenses on those marks. It seems you may be discussing a distinction of copyright versus trademark, but I'm guessing at this point. Yes, that's correct. A particular license that basically says they can change it in future to anything they want is bad. A trademark license that says pretty much the same thing you're doing it wrong, you cannot use our trademark anymore is similiarly bad. My comment is the impact of either is different, but they're both bad. I hope its clearer now. - Craig -- Craig Small VK2XLZ http://enc.com.au/ csmall at : enc.com.au Debian GNU/Linux http://www.debian.org/ csmall at : debian.org GPG fingerprint: 5D2F B320 B825 D939 04D2 0519 3938 F96B DF50 FEA5 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120222072940.ga30...@enc.com.au
Re: trademark licenses and DFSG: a summary
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 03:26:59PM +, Uoti Urpala wrote: You can't trust entities like Debian to stay good forever. The only practical way to maintain trust is to maintain some degree of control. You can't enumerate all the possible kinds of badness you'd want to forbid, and then grant a blanket trademark license to everyone allowing everything else. You speaking from the rights of trademark holders. They're well within their rights to make their trademark license whatever they want it to be. Just like they are well within their rights to license their programs however they want. What I'm talking about is what Debian should accept and everything you are saying about retrospective control of a program is everything that is bad about this situation for Debian. requirements. That say Firefox is distributed under a DFSG-free license means that any idiot who thinks it's a great idea to create a browser that replaces all web page pictures with Goatse images is free to use Firefox code to achieve his goal. However, trademarks are meant So what? With no trademark they could do this now. With trademarks you are saying they cannot. The user has lost some freedom here. There are plenty of times when we have done something to a program that upstream might not like; with your scenario they can revoke the trademark and therefore our way of being able to distribute the package. If you want to allow doing all modifications permitted by the DFSG (which includes obnoxious ones) without the effort of rebranding, then you must remove all use of trademarks from Debian, including the This I don't understand. To me there are two scenarios: 1) The trademark license permits us to do everything that a DFSG license would permit 2) It doesn't We accept 1 and not 2. A Debian-specific trademark fits in #2 so we cannot accept it and either don't package it or rename it. - Craig -- Craig Small VK2XLZ http://enc.com.au/ csmall at : enc.com.au Debian GNU/Linux http://www.debian.org/ csmall at : debian.org GPG fingerprint: 5D2F B320 B825 D939 04D2 0519 3938 F96B DF50 FEA5 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: trademark licenses and DFSG: a summary
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 07:56:11PM +, Uoti Urpala wrote: Stefano Zacchiroli leader at debian.org writes: - Debian should neither seek nor accept trademark licenses that are specific to the Debian Project. (Suggested by Steve Langasek. In addition to Steve's reasoning, I think that doing otherwise would go against the underlying principle of DFSG §8 License Must Not Be Specific to Debian.) I think this one is questionable. Ideally, a trademark is about trust - it tells the user that the product meets the quality requirements of the trademark owner. A trademark owner may trust the processes used by the Debian project to produce results that meet their quality criteria, and may be able to monitor the versions actually released by Debian and withdraw the right to use the trademark should Debian change in a direction that harms users. There's no way a trademark That all sounds like a good reason to reject this hypothetical package. Retrospectively being able to change the trademark terms sounds like a tentacles of evil problem. Trademark isn't all about trust, it's also about control. We, unfortunately, cannot ignore it but we have to deal with it our way. All of the sections in the DFSG are important. We could of, when framing the DFSG, gone the easy path and not had a section 8 but we didn't. To me the requirements that we will not accept a Debian-specific trademark arrangement is as important as not accepting a Debian-specific license for exactly the same reasons. Both stances mean we cannot package stuff at times, or we have to fudge it with non-free. That to me is a perfectly acceptable trade-off. I completely agree with you that there will be problems with this stance but Debian is more than a technical group cranking out .deb files. - Craig -- Craig Small VK2XLZ http://enc.com.au/ csmall at : enc.com.au Debian GNU/Linux http://www.debian.org/ csmall at : debian.org GPG fingerprint: 5D2F B320 B825 D939 04D2 0519 3938 F96B DF50 FEA5 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: DEP-5: Clarifying copyright/license requirements
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 06:30:48PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: problem that people are running into in evaluating the format, and there is a ton of negative discussion of DEP-5 out there based on the idea that it's so much harder than the existing copyright format because of additional required information. This appears to be what people are talking about. It was certainly my objection to the format when we were first formulating the DEP. It was cleared up on-list but obviously we don't want to continuously be doing that. Maybe the easiest way through this impasse is to just say explicitly in DEP-5 that only the license and copyright information required by the Debian archive policy is required here, and that while the format *allows* more information to be provided if one desires, it does not *require* any of that. This is probably going to require special language around the case of a Files: * stanza. Something as clear as that would be helpful. I think some of the problem is that it is a bit like the y2k bug side-effect which found other bugs. Absolutely nothing to do with y2k but because everyone had to look and examine old code, other bugs were found. Similiarly, becaue DEP-5 means re-looking at the copyright and license situation, it might fix those sorts of bugs. This is actually a good thing! - Craig -- Craig Small VK2XLZ http://enc.com.au/ csmall at : enc.com.au Debian GNU/Linux http://www.debian.org/ csmall at : debian.org GPG fingerprint: 5D2F B320 B825 D939 04D2 0519 3938 F96B DF50 FEA5 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120123051629.ga7...@enc.com.au
Re: copyright-format: with keywords exception underspecified
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 02:19:34PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: I've committed the below patch to the dep repo on svn.debian.org. That looks fine to me too. It's a sensible compromise to having everything specified off the short name and not putting too much scope-creep into the short name. wrt the other email I saw after this one; it's not policy yet and wasn't in policy for precisely last-minute-tweaking sort of reasons. - Craig -- Craig Small VK2XLZ http://enc.com.au/ csmall at : enc.com.au Debian GNU/Linux http://www.debian.org/ csmall at : debian.org old fingerprint: 1C1B D893 1418 2AF4 45EE 95CB C76C E5AC 12CA DFA5 NEW fingerprint: 5D2F B320 B825 D939 04D2 0519 3938 F96B DF50 FEA5 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#633797: copyright-format: with keywords exception underspecified
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 06:08:25PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: I have no objection to this for 1.0, provided we at the same time clarify that if more than one exception is in use, you need to use a custom shortname instead of an ORed or ANDed list of licenses. Is there a consensus for this position? FWIW I think it's a sensible solution to it. The cases where there is more than one exception are probably quite rare and are effectively their own license in any case. - Craig -- Craig Small VK2XLZ http://enc.com.au/ csmall at : enc.com.au Debian GNU/Linux http://www.debian.org/ csmall at : debian.org old fingerprint: 1C1B D893 1418 2AF4 45EE 95CB C76C E5AC 12CA DFA5 NEW fingerprint: 5D2F B320 B825 D939 04D2 0519 3938 F96B DF50 FEA5 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Logo rights
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 11:34:08PM +0200, pavroo wrote: I am writing to you becouse I am running a web site for Linux beginners http://linuxiarze.pl and I want to make sure about your logo's licence. There are two (or three depending how you see it) varieties of the Debian logo and they all have slightly different licenses. You can see them at http://www.debian.org/logos I'd like to offer my readers some gadgets with the popular dist's logo (like yours) as a free gift (to help advertize your project too) given with other selling my gadget. That sounds like you could use the 'open use' logo for that. - Craig -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4e08f750.3020...@onet.eu -- Craig Small VK2XLZhttp://www.enc.com.au/ csmall at : enc.com.au Debian GNU/Linux http://www.debian.org/ csmall at : debian.org GPG fingerprint: 1C1B D893 1418 2AF4 45EE 95CB C76C E5AC 12CA DFA5 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110627233928.ga7...@enc.com.au
Re: Using corporate accounts when posting to Debian mailing lists
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 11:10:49PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: I wonder if this is the result of corporate pressure, or if this is somehow encouraged by the de-facto list policy. You'll never find me using a corporate address. The IP and surveilence rules are just plain crazy these days and I'd rather have all my Debian or other Free Software email go to a nice sensible mutt reader than get tangled into the corporate exchange servers. In fact, my corporate email address has no hits in google. A few simple mutt hooks and I can use the debian.org email address for Debian related work. It's just a lot easier that way. I largely agree with what Russ said except in my case I do use my own domain because corporates get funny about email use. I've also had my own domain (and worked on Debian) far longer than I've stayed in one place. - Craig -- Craig Small VK2XLZhttp://www.enc.com.au/ csmall at : enc.com.au Debian GNU/Linux http://www.debian.org/ csmall at : debian.org GPG fingerprint: 1C1B D893 1418 2AF4 45EE 95CB C76C E5AC 12CA DFA5 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110511230717.gc25...@enc.com.au
Re: DEP5: CANDIDATE and ready for use in squeeze+1
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 10:27:39AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote: Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes: I am vehemently opposed to Ben's patch, which is effectively an end run around Debian Policy. That's a fair criticism. I should make a bug report against Policy. That's the right place to put it too. It's like the bug reports I get regarding dh-make which really need to sit in policy regarding package building. I'm happy with the optional one. It's best not to have things locked in that are not in policy. - Craig -- Craig Small VK2XLZhttp://www.enc.com.au/ csmall at : enc.com.au Debian GNU/Linux http://www.debian.org/ csmall at : debian.org GPG fingerprint: 1C1B D893 1418 2AF4 45EE 95CB C76C E5AC 12CA DFA5 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110120010928.ga14...@enc.com.au
Re: DEP5: License section
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 09:43:53PM +, Lars Wirzenius wrote: * SPDX sometimes adds a license version, when we don't, or adds a .0 to license version = ignore? the difference should not matter much = maybe suggest to SPDX they drop the .0 I'd suggest that to SPDX but if they don't change just put in something that Foo-1.2 implies Foo-1.2.0 or even Foo-1.2.0.0 The rest of it I agree, the only thing is that any differences should be documented somewhere so when someone comes along to this standard they don't have to trawl debian-project email archives to work out why we have GFDL and SPDX has FDL (for example). A reference somewhere stating the differences would be enough, perhaps not in DEP5 itself, but somewhere, such as the wiki. - Craig -- Craig Small VK2XLZhttp://www.enc.com.au/ csmall at : enc.com.au Debian GNU/Linux http://www.debian.org/ csmall at : debian.org GPG fingerprint: 1C1B D893 1418 2AF4 45EE 95CB C76C E5AC 12CA DFA5 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20101220222546.gb17...@enc.com.au
Re: DEP5: Extra fields without ‘X-’ prefix?
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 10:53:55AM +, Philip Hands wrote: Extra fields can be added to any paragraph. Before introducing new field names you should request comments on the wisdom of the new field. When introducing it please also record it on: http://wiki.d.o/.../page-for-proposed-new-DEP5-fields No ``X-'' prefix is required or desired in new field names. I think it is a good idea to check. It will hopefully reduce the chances of having lots of fields that mean the same thing, but have different names. - Craig -- Craig Small VK2XLZhttp://www.enc.com.au/ csmall at : enc.com.au Debian GNU/Linux http://www.debian.org/ csmall at : debian.org GPG fingerprint: 1C1B D893 1418 2AF4 45EE 95CB C76C E5AC 12CA DFA5 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20101122200455.gc12...@enc.com.au
Re: commercial spam on planet
On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 09:31:32PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: Somehow you need to take into account how often this happens, whether the article provide value for a majority of planet readers, etc. It's difficult to set a clear limit. To me that's the real test. If it looks like there are a series of articles and all they seem to be about is 'give me money' then it doesn't seem right to have it on planet. If the focus is more about the thing being talked about and flattr or whatever is a side-line it doesn't seem too bad. In the 15 years of writing Free Software, I've not really asked for anything. I'm quite happy with that. It doesn't mean I think everyone MUST be the same, so a little solicitation is ok. - Craig -- Craig Small GnuPG:1C1B D893 1418 2AF4 45EE 95CB C76C E5AC 12CA DFA5 http://www.enc.com.au/ csmall at : enc.com.au http://www.debian.org/ Debian GNU/Linux, software should be Free -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20101108215933.ga11...@enc.com.au
Re: No general political content on Planet
On Thu, Nov 04, 2010 at 07:28:47PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: Could we please make and enforce a rule that no general political content is published on planet.debian.org and similar sites? I happen to like the sometimes strange mix of posts on planet! Some directly Debian related, some technical and then some, well, other. To me, it gives a reminder Debian is not just a thousand or so developers, but actual people with, yes, different political views. I don't think we want to deal with the resulting toxic debates. YES to a variety of topics, including political, on planet. NO to toxic debates; anywhere. I can't even find what would of caused such a problem on planet now. - Craig -- Craig Small GnuPG:1C1B D893 1418 2AF4 45EE 95CB C76C E5AC 12CA DFA5 http://www.enc.com.au/ csmall at : enc.com.au http://www.debian.org/ Debian GNU/Linux, software should be Free -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20101105212721.gd18...@enc.com.au
Re: DEP-5: clarify batching of copyrights, licenses in a single stanza
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 12:35:23PM +0100, Lars Wirzenius wrote: On to, 2010-10-28 at 19:58 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: Would ‘Copyright 2008, 2009, 2010 John Smith, Angela Watts’ be also acceptable ? Especially if the situation is: Copyright 2008 John Smith Copyright 2009, 2010 Angela Watts Copyright 2010 John Smith, Angela Watts I don't know what the proper answer to this is, but it is probably not something that the DEP5 file format needs to address anyway. This is the collecting part I hope is cleared up. Do something like grep -i copyright `find . -name '*.[ch]'` over a non trivial project, especially one that has been around for years and you get all sorts of wonderful combinations. The globbing Charles suggested adds Angela to 2008 and John to 2009, maybe. I'm not sure if that's a problem. - Craig -- Craig Small GnuPG:1C1B D893 1418 2AF4 45EE 95CB C76C E5AC 12CA DFA5 http://www.enc.com.au/ csmall at : enc.com.au http://www.debian.org/ Debian GNU/Linux, software should be Free -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20101028201549.gb11...@enc.com.au
Re: DEP-5: general file syntax
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 06:24:39PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: I wonder if we should have some terminator for the machine-readable portion of debian/copyright, below which is free-form supporting material That would be the simplest way, a 'stop reading here' line for the parsers. That way anything that is supplementary can go there. It probably needs to be documented that nothing that places extra restrictions or conditions can go there though. - Craig -- Craig Small GnuPG:1C1B D893 1418 2AF4 45EE 95CB C76C E5AC 12CA DFA5 http://www.enc.com.au/ csmall at : enc.com.au http://www.debian.org/ Debian GNU/Linux, software should be Free -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100818051302.ga11...@enc.com.au
Re: DEP-5: clarify batching of copyrights, licenses in a single stanza
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 10:39:38PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: Indeed, there seems to be a quite common misconception that the presence of syntax in DEP-5 that lets you list the copyright and license of individual files means that it is a *requirement* that you list the license status with this level of granularity. To my knowledge no one has ever intended this to be the case, and it has never been my understanding of the drafts to date. As someone who wasn't in on those discussions it reads like that. So it seems the intent I was happy with but perhaps the wording is ambiguous (it seems there are at least 3 of us that have read it wrong) Attached is a patch that tries to clarify this in the DEP itself. Do you think it does an adequate job of this? If so, given that this is a It certainly makes it more clearer. Something around the Copyright section would help explaining that it is not essential that every author listed is responsible for every file covered by this section, it is just important to capture all authors for the collection of files this stanza specifies. Explaining the years would be nice, ie a.c (C) 2001-2003 Me and b.c (C) 2000-2002 Me is stating (C) 2000-2003 Me in the Files: * statement ok? Perhaps it should be more explicit. When I'm reviewing my documentation, I try to forget the thing I wrote about and read it again to see if it gives whatever I intended. I've often had comments about the documents that start of with me initially thinking what are they smoking to i see how they get that to it reads like that to me, Ill change it after some time. If this does make it in, someone should write a file checking program to check the globbing. command filename returns license - Craig -- Craig Small GnuPG:1C1B D893 1418 2AF4 45EE 95CB C76C E5AC 12CA DFA5 http://www.enc.com.au/ csmall at : enc.com.au http://www.debian.org/ Debian GNU/Linux, software should be Free -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100814074512.ga5...@enc.com.au
Re: DEP-5 meta: New co-driver; current issues
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 11:19:13AM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote: Also it should be possible to say something like this package is licensed under license FOO, but with the following exceptions - and then add a field which takes a longish text with the exceptions. As Jonas stated, you can do that with the exceptions bit. The DEP needs a little formatting to me because it's difficult to describe to you (or anyone else) which bit I'm talking about. - Craig -- Craig Small GnuPG:1C1B D893 1418 2AF4 45EE 95CB C76C E5AC 12CA DFA5 http://www.enc.com.au/ csmall at : enc.com.au http://www.debian.org/ Debian GNU/Linux, software should be Free -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100814075319.gb5...@enc.com.au
Re: DEP-5: clarify batching of copyrights, licenses in a single stanza
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 10:04:12AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: The Copyright field collects all relevant copyright notices for the files of this stanza. Not all copyright notices may apply to every individual file, and years of publication for one copyright holder may be gathered together. For example, if file A has: I like the collected part and the example. If Russ' patch (or something close to it) was in DEP-5 then it is clear to me at least the intention of what you are trying to do here. - Craig -- Craig Small GnuPG:1C1B D893 1418 2AF4 45EE 95CB C76C E5AC 12CA DFA5 http://www.enc.com.au/ csmall at : enc.com.au http://www.debian.org/ Debian GNU/Linux, software should be Free -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100814232433.ga10...@enc.com.au
Re: DEP-5: clarify batching of copyrights, licenses in a single stanza
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 06:00:12PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 05:45:12PM +1000, Craig Small wrote: If this does make it in, someone should write a file checking program to check the globbing. command filename returns license Except that DEP5 only covers source. Would still make sense to have a program doing similar for source: command source-package filename returns license I was more thinking you're sitting in the source directory already, but that works too. - Craig -- Craig Small GnuPG:1C1B D893 1418 2AF4 45EE 95CB C76C E5AC 12CA DFA5 http://www.enc.com.au/ csmall at : enc.com.au http://www.debian.org/ Debian GNU/Linux, software should be Free -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100814233159.gc10...@enc.com.au
Re: DEP-5 meta: New co-driver; current issues
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 12:09:44PM +1200, Lars Wirzenius wrote: On pe, 2010-08-13 at 09:08 +1000, Craig Small wrote: That would indicate there is a bug in the DEP-5 spec. It is, in my very non-humble opinion, not acceptable for DEP-5 to make it harder to maintain debian/copyright in DEP-5 format than as a free-form one, It might be how its written. I don't have the background of the DEP-5 creation so have to read the spec as it is. My suggestions: * Split out the authors and the copyright dates into one chunk. The fact that fileA is copyright 2005 Joe and fileB is copyright 2006 Fred and then fileC is copyright 2006 both of this is completely irrelevant for most people, just that Joe and Fred have copyright of some parts of the package is enough. Files: * Copyright: 2005-2006, Joe 2006, Fred That means all files Fred worked on in 2006 and all files Joe worked on in 2005 and 2006? You'll get yourself tangled up into some horrible year X author matrix this way. I had a look at one of my packages, 400 files with 50 different copyright combinations. Maybe Files: * needs clarification. The difference between 'all' and 'any'. The interaction with authors and licenses causes the problem. It is solvable though. Currently having copyright lines and license lines mandatory for all files is what driving this. I saw a suggestion that there could be a package copyright and authors. That would simplify things. If a files stanza has no copyright or author you use the package one, or the Files: all (or whatever, I dont care about the syntax) information. Yes, I agree it should be an option. If you want to list every file and every author and license then it should be permitted. I'm also interested in seeing how this pans out as the dh-make templates will need updating. - Craig -- Craig Small GnuPG:1C1B D893 1418 2AF4 45EE 95CB C76C E5AC 12CA DFA5 http://www.enc.com.au/ csmall at : enc.com.au http://www.debian.org/ Debian GNU/Linux, software should be Free -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100813061357.ga22...@enc.com.au
Re: DEP-5 meta: New co-driver; current issues
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 01:27:12AM +1200, Lars Wirzenius wrote: On to, 2010-08-12 at 14:59 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote: - Personally I find the format unnecessarily complicated and much more annoying to use than writing a normal debian/copyright file, especially for complicated cases. You're not required to use it. If you want to improve the format, please make concrete proposals, or at least explain why it is complicated and I actually second Bernd's comments. It seems uneccessarily complex and so very much harder to read. It's especially insane if you have multiple authors and where the license stays the same but the copyright years change. I tried to use it once on one program and just ditched it. It only made it more difficult for me and for anyone who read it. You really need to stop and think what is this for? What information is important to have and what can be found in the source files later if someone really cares. My suggestions: * Split out the authors and the copyright dates into one chunk. The fact that fileA is copyright 2005 Joe and fileB is copyright 2006 Fred and then fileC is copyright 2006 both of this is completely irrelevant for most people, just that Joe and Fred have copyright of some parts of the package is enough. * Make it possible to say this package is licensed under foo except fileA which is licensed under bar More importantly, making debian/copyright be machine parseable provides some immediate benefits, without having to wait for a solution to the big, difficult problem. What are these benefits? I am not doubting there would be some but maybe knowing the benefits can drive the format a little? Just because you can specify the license, year and authors to the n'th degree doesn't mean you should. - Craig -- Craig Small GnuPG:1C1B D893 1418 2AF4 45EE 95CB C76C E5AC 12CA DFA5 http://www.enc.com.au/ csmall at : enc.com.au http://www.debian.org/ Debian GNU/Linux, software should be Free -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100812230806.gb32...@enc.com.au
Re: Debian on E-Bay (way: selling distributions)
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 08:22:37PM +0200, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote: On a case by case basis there have been successfully attempts to convince E-Bay that there is nothing wrong a specific auction, however E-Bay seems not to learn from such single incidents. All I can find is a web interface which might be read by someone. So, does anyone know a good way to get in contact with them? Maybe a real human, whom we can talk to, and should know whose responsible for that? As Florian has said, Ebay won't let you sell CD-Rs. I spent some time with Ebay years ago, as one of the Debian webmasters who looks after the CD vendors, as there was no way to convince them otherwise. This was after getting past their completely stupid and very unhelpful semi-automatic replies you get for the first few rounds. You know the type of replies, they go on for two pages and don't actually answer your question. I actually got a real and thinking human and they said no for CD-Rs, which was much shorter and useful reply. I didn't matter I was saying it was ok, it didn't matter if I got the DPL to say it was ok, or that the software is available on 100s? 1000s? of ftp and webservers around the world, the answer was no. - Craig -- Craig Small GnuPG:1C1B D893 1418 2AF4 45EE 95CB C76C E5AC 12CA DFA5 http://www.enc.com.au/ csmall at : enc.com.au http://www.debian.org/ Debian GNU/Linux, software should be Free -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: A Tattoo
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 09:24:06AM +0100, Amaya wrote: Congratulations, welcome to the club. Thee is several of us sporting WONDERFUL Debian swirls, tux penguins, even gpg fingerprints. It's something I never thought would happen. Nothing wrong with it but when the original poster emailled me I was surprised. Thanks for the links, I see what you mean. They both look good. - Craig (too old and too chicken for tattoos) -- Craig Small GnuPG:1C1B D893 1418 2AF4 45EE 95CB C76C E5AC 12CA DFA5 http://www.enc.com.au/ csmall at : enc.com.au http://www.debian.org/ Debian GNU/Linux, software should be Free -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: packages
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 12:17:04PM -0800, Ashley Ward wrote: I'm interested in learning how debian is able to have so many packages maintained. What is the process you use to compile them. How do you keep up with all the different software sources? Hello Ashely, You're right we have quite a number, over 18,000, packages within the Debian project. I would say there would be nearly as many opinions on why Debian works as there are developers; in my mind the answer would be nobody really trully knows, though I do know some people have studied projects like ours previously. The first thing to understand is there are a lot of us and we are all over the world. This means while there are many packages, I only look after 8. Some people look after more, some only one. Each developer compilies their package usually only once per version and on one architecture. Next we have about 20 architectures that most packages need to be built on. Generally a package is uploaded once and works on a standard PC (i386). We have a bunch of systems called buildd[1] that take the new packages and builds them for the other architectures. That's the mechanical or technical part of it. Another important part and something I think is often overlooked is the standards[2]. These are very important for a project as large as ours because it means my package will work other peoples packages in a reasonably known way. It also gives one developer, or even a user, a way of understanding if something is not right. A simple example being if I use a program, it should be found in /usr/bin (there are exceptions). If I find it in /opt/mypackage/release/1.0/bin/ then it is probably an error. How do I know this? The standards say so. Finally, there is a large sense of community within the project. I cannot really explain it, but it is there. Like any group of people there are disagreements and arguments, but for the large majority of the time we are all working together doing our own little bit for our favourite distribution of GNU/Linux. I hope that answers your question Ashley. While I've been in Debian for over 10 years, it is still only one persons opinion. - Craig [1] http://buildd.debian.org/ [2] http://www.debian.org/devel/ links on the right. _ Drag n? drop?Get easy photo sharing with Windows Live? Photos. http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/photos.aspx -- Craig Small GnuPG:1C1B D893 1418 2AF4 45EE 95CB C76C E5AC 12CA DFA5 http://www.enc.com.au/ csmall at : enc.com.au http://www.debian.org/ Debian GNU/Linux, software should be Free -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: debian/copyright for files not part of the binary packages?
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 02:55:07PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote: Charles Plessy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: the most time consuming part of making a Debian package is to document the licence of the files. From the information Russ gave, I would only conclude that documenting the license of all the upstream files is the most time-consuming part of *writing the copyright file*, without any statement of relation to the whole effort of making the Debian package. I actually agree with Charles, it can be the most time consuming part of the whole process. - Craig -- Craig Small GnuPG:1C1B D893 1418 2AF4 45EE 95CB C76C E5AC 12CA DFA5 http://www.enc.com.au/ csmall at : enc.com.au http://www.debian.org/ Debian GNU/Linux, software should be Free -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: $RANDOM_GMAIL_USER wants to chat
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 12:46:51PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: Just for those following along at home, this (and a few other rules) have already been added.[1] However, we're always looking for better Yay! Thankyou listmasters, um listmasters and listmistresses, err listpersoniods. Thanks anyway, I've got an inkling how hard that job is and we only notice when you haven't fixed it (yet). - Craig -- Craig Small GnuPG:1C1B D893 1418 2AF4 45EE 95CB C76C E5AC 12CA DFA5 http://www.enc.com.au/ csmall at : enc.com.au http://www.debian.org/ Debian GNU/Linux, software should be Free -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian Logo Use
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 04:20:33PM -0700, Will Kaiser wrote: were to go the latter route, I would be using the Debian swirl for the logo and the word debi in the name. I won't do either of those without the blessing of the Debian project and am willing to modify my project plans to an extent if you think we can negotiate. You may be asking why not just use your own name/logo?. Well, this really isn't a true distribution. It's just a slightly customized Debian install and we want people to know that. I think they're too similiar. Someone has already pointed out the URLs for the logo and trademark sites. To me you have two problems with using debi and the swirl logo. The first is yes you may run foul of the law doing this. What SPI would do is, probably at this point, theoretical but there is certainly a chance of trouble. The second problem is more likely and possibly more damaging. Some people will interpret what you are doing as trying to pass off your distribution as the real Debian project. They will then view your project in a negative light. It may be someone withing Debian, who may be less likely to cooperate, or it could be someone outside who then doesn't use the distribution or worse stil starts some huge flamewar on some blog somewhere about it. Then suddenly what you are trying to do appears to be sinister, when all you're trying to do is get Debian out there to some group of users who may not of heard of it or would use it. Bad for everyone all round. If you create a Special Packaging Group distribution with a smiling hamster in a kilt (or whatever it is called and looks) that mentions it uses Debian then that whole potiential negative press goes away. I would say using your own will mean not buying into a lot of headaches later on. Good luck on your project, anyone who can get more people using Free Software in general and Debian (derivative or not) is a good thing in my opinion. - Craig -- Craig Small GnuPG:1C1B D893 1418 2AF4 45EE 95CB C76C E5AC 12CA DFA5 http://www.enc.com.au/ csmall at : enc.com.au http://www.debian.org/ Debian GNU/Linux, software should be Free -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: NM process, AMs, advocates, mentors and applicants
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wish that AMs could spend even *more* time per applicant than is currently spent following the standard templates. Marc was my AM and did a TS evaluation based on solving real problems in Debian While that sounds great, it sounds more of a mentor role than an AM role to me. The problem is an AM doesn't get to choose their NM and there can often be a great mis-match of skills. Think of two AMs, one knows perl and the other C network daemons. And then two applicants, again with same skills. You have a 50/50 chance of aligning the skills, and in some ways more importantly, the interest of the AM and NM. MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2. a few DDs (any AMs?) pre-date the NM process and maybe wouldn't pass it - it's debatable whether that means that the DD shouldn't be a DD, or that the NM process is testing the wrong things. That's one of the biggest problems of it, to me the process is too difficult and is picket fencing where you ignore some parts of being a Debian maintainer but then plunge deep into some esoteric questions. Other than I needed it to check the applicants answers, I could of done my work in Debian without knowing most of the TS stuff. I doubt that I'm unique. I also suggest that such AM-mentoring is inefficient and borders on improper, like a teacher examining (rather than merely testing) their I agree with that sentiment. I have been an AM and still are a mentor, but never both at the same time. A mentor to me is more of a guide, the AM is more of a gatekeeper. - Craig -- Craig Small GnuPG:1C1B D893 1418 2AF4 45EE 95CB C76C E5AC 12CA DFA5 http://www.enc.com.au/ csmall at : enc.com.au http://www.debian.org/ Debian GNU/Linux, software should be Free -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Google summer of code
Hello, I'm willing to assist in helping with the mentoring or admin for this if Debian Developers are required. Who is going to lead this? - Craig Please CC me as im not on -project. -- Craig Small GnuPG:1C1B D893 1418 2AF4 45EE 95CB C76C E5AC 12CA DFA5 Eye-Net Consulting http://www.enc.com.au/ MIEE Debian developer csmall at : enc.com.au ieee.org debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Google ads on debian.org
To perhaps see what Google adwords might produce for the Debian website you could look at one of my pages [1]. The ironic thiing is the Debian package adzapper seems to nuke them so I cannot see for myself at the moment what it is showing :) It sounds like making it a commercial site will be a problem at the least for our mirrors so my say is no thanks Mr Google. I have my site hosted on my server at work so no problems for me, I might even get a cheque for 100 real dollars before easter. :) - Craig [1] http://small.dropbear.id.au/debian.html -- Craig Small GnuPG:1C1B D893 1418 2AF4 45EE 95CB C76C E5AC 12CA DFA5 Eye-Net Consulting http://www.enc.com.au/ MIEE Debian developer csmall at : enc.com.au ieee.org debian.org
Re: Web site his future
On Mon, Nov 06, 2000 at 11:03:39PM +0100, Christian Surchi wrote: I was talking about it in irc with Joy and I'd like to discuss here this question. I'd like to see for example a new style for our web pages and I'm not an artist and I didn't see artists in the project offering help or new ideas. So, from the point of view of Project and rest of the world, I see that we have only NM as way to call people to help us. I don't think we need all people working on web site are devolopers (in the sense of packaging or other technical aspects I mean). I remember also Nils Lohner's Projects project and I think web question could be related. I don't want to offer a job for developing a new debian web site, but I'd like to call people that could be interested in the growth of our project (also artists) but aren't interested directly in packaging or technical development for our distribution. We have had had people asking us about helping with the website, I think the webmasters in general need to work out how we can use some creative people in getting a better website. While the current website is good, I always believe there is always room for improvement. A separate specific project would be good, which could then be rolled into the current site. That way the maintenance of the website is not distirbed but it gets improved. Stuff similar to what Will Trillich (sp?) emailed is what we need. you may not agree with everything he said, but ceratinly the queries should of least been asked. IIRC, his main concern was what usefulness is the website for a newbie. The main problem is you get this case of great idea, but now what. I'd say have a small group that has a few test pages, perhaps a site re-org or suggestions for missing pages. Once it is generally agreed that yes this is what we want to do it gets implemented. This small group can then ponder the next stlyistic thing that needs looking at. I think the dual model would work, of course people may sit in both camps and that's fine too. - Craig -- Craig Small VK2XLZ GnuPG:1C1B D893 1418 2AF4 45EE 95CB C76C E5AC 12CA DFA5 Eye-Net Consulting http://www.eye-net.com.au/[EMAIL PROTECTED] MIEEE [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian developer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Eliot Landrum on hold
Eliot has been put on hold due to not replying to emails. -- Craig Small VK2XLZ GnuPG:1C1B D893 1418 2AF4 45EE 95CB C76C E5AC 12CA DFA5 Eye-Net Consulting http://www.eye-net.com.au/[EMAIL PROTECTED] MIEEE [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian developer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Angus Lees on hold
Angus does not reply to his emails, putting on hold. -- Craig Small VK2XLZ GnuPG:1C1B D893 1418 2AF4 45EE 95CB C76C E5AC 12CA DFA5 Eye-Net Consulting http://www.eye-net.com.au/[EMAIL PROTECTED] MIEEE [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian developer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AM Report on Santiago Garcia Mantinan
On Thu, Sep 21, 2000 at 11:07:26PM -0500, Mike Mattice wrote: Debian-private and forwarding: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Is that a real email address? I.am impressed! - Craig -- Craig Small VK2XLZ GnuPG:1C1B D893 1418 2AF4 45EE 95CB C76C E5AC 12CA DFA5 Eye-Net Consulting http://www.eye-net.com.au/[EMAIL PROTECTED] MIEEE [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian developer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How long to wait for applicant response?
On Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 08:08:08AM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote: On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, Gopal Narayanan wrote: I have an applicant who told me a week ago that he would send his scanned id (he said he had a scanner even). So far no replies from him. How long is it considered normal to wait? Do AMs normally send reminders if the applicant takes a while? Just curious, because I realize the more time each applicant takes, somebody else is waiting in the queue. First, this is entirely up to you ;-) Seriously, a week is probably stretching things for something the applicant has already said just a minute and I'll get that to you. On the other hand, a second ping may be all it takes to start things moving. I: email, wait a week email again, wait a week stick them in the deep freeze (on hold) with a third email. Generally speaking, you can expect to get pretty bad response from most of your applicants (80%). My current set of 7 applicants varies from barely OK to real bad. I guess I used up my good 20% already :( I really should bounce ones who don't reply sooner. It's not like there aren't others to process. Another way to deal with this is to take on more applicants at one time, so the waiting is less restricting. Which is why I can do 7, no sweat. I'll probably bounce 3 of them early next week. -- Craig Small VK2XLZ GnuPG:1C1B D893 1418 2AF4 45EE 95CB C76C E5AC 12CA DFA5 Eye-Net Consulting http://www.eye-net.com.au/[EMAIL PROTECTED] MIEEE [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian developer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Where to send NM reports?
On Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 11:26:14PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote: The basic report (just name, did they pass steps 2, 3 and 4, do you approve them) goes to [EMAIL PROTECTED] The full report (which in addition has the GPG key, any photo ID needed, copies of relevant parts of relevant emails etc.) goes to both the Front Desk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and the DAMs ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). I cheat by using a file called, say, julian.txt. This list gets that file emailled to it. The two heavies get that file plus all the other stuff you mentioned. I hate typing twice. The actual report itself are the same. - Craig -- Craig Small VK2XLZ GnuPG:1C1B D893 1418 2AF4 45EE 95CB C76C E5AC 12CA DFA5 Eye-Net Consulting http://www.eye-net.com.au/[EMAIL PROTECTED] MIEEE [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian developer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AM Report on Chris Rutter
On Sun, Sep 17, 2000 at 10:42:52PM +0900, Fumitoshi UKAI wrote: Does anyone else see my pgp signature was bad? Couldn't resist. ME TOO!! Looks like you have a problem. - Craig -- Craig Small VK2XLZ GnuPG:1C1B D893 1418 2AF4 45EE 95CB C76C E5AC 12CA DFA5 Eye-Net Consulting http://www.eye-net.com.au/[EMAIL PROTECTED] MIEEE [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian developer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Translation skills
On Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 09:48:47AM -0400, H. S. Teoh wrote: Two of my current applicants mentioned that they would like to translate the Debian WWW pages to other languages. How should I go about verifying that they're able to do so, since I don't know the target languages? Easy, talk to the translation team leader about them. I'd ask them what they would like to make sure they could do. In the end, the team leader is the one who is going to wear your applicant's mistakes. Also, they already show sufficient proficiency in packaging skills -- so maybe checking the translation skills can wait till after they become Debian maintainers? Yes, it is not neccessary for this, perhaps get them as maintainers then let the translation team sort them out. - Craig -- Craig Small VK2XLZ GnuPG:1C1B D893 1418 2AF4 45EE 95CB C76C E5AC 12CA DFA5 Eye-Net Consulting http://www.eye-net.com.au/[EMAIL PROTECTED] MIEEE [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian developer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Agreeing with philosophies/procedures
On Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 09:44:07AM -0400, H. S. Teoh wrote: I got the following from one of my applicants w.r.t. agreeing with the Social Contract / DFSG. Is this sufficient, or should I go through more detailed checks with him? I have now reread this social contract and I do absoulutely agree with all of it. So: I agree to the the procedures and philosophies outlined in the social contract at http://www.debian.org/social_contract.;. There is a reason for why I like debian, you know :) I'd say it is way too short. i had a similar problem and bounced them. As the email log shows: } Are my answers to short? Do you want to read somewhat longer } explainations? } Yes :) } } Just a couple of lines about what DFSG is and how your goals and Debians } align. Before you send it, read it as if it is was not written by you } and ask yourself does this guy 'get it' or understands it or gets the } gist of it. } } If that's too hard, assume a friend has written a program and is } deciding on what license to use. If you thought he could use a DFSG } free license what would you say and what license(s) may you suggest. } } No huge essays, 4 lines or so is fine. I just need to know you have some } idea about this. -- Craig Small VK2XLZ GnuPG:1C1B D893 1418 2AF4 45EE 95CB C76C E5AC 12CA DFA5 Eye-Net Consulting http://www.eye-net.com.au/[EMAIL PROTECTED] MIEEE [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian developer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
NM website changes
G'day, More changes to the NM website. * AM login fields can be up to 32 characters (same as utmp) and are now variable-length character string rather than the very annoying to code fore fixed length string. * Front Desk can now change an AM's login. Doing this change also updates the applicant's table so the manager change changes over as well. * Website checks for nukll/blank maintainer before trying to email * them. -- Craig Small VK2XLZ GnuPG:1C1B D893 1418 2AF4 45EE 95CB C76C E5AC 12CA DFA5 Eye-Net Consulting http://www.eye-net.com.au/[EMAIL PROTECTED] MIEEE [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian developer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
