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? I saw this post after I saw your subsequent blog post but FWIW I welcome your non-technical content on p.d.o, thanks! -- 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/20121107095911.GA32758@debian
Re: Planned changes to Debian Maintainer uploads
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 04:40:16PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > Could we have an expiration date associated with the grants? I might > grant somebody rights to a package, but want it to expire within $period > (or at least be subject to more aggressive QA/MIA checks than a normal > DD), since I'll be tied to them in a way. That seems like a good idea, if we're in agreement that the point of DM is to be a bridge status whilst someone works through NM. I think that was the intention and presume it still is. There's a risk that someone will get DM status and then only care about a small handful of packages and so not bother to progress with NM. I think I've seen that a few times. -- 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/20120611154817.GB2346@debian
Re: Planned changes to Debian Maintainer uploads
On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 01:57:49PM +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: > Hi, > > (Please send followup messages to -project.) > > The ftp team wants to change how allowing Debian Maintainers to upload > packages works. The current approach with the DM-Upload-Allowed field > has a few issues we would like to address: Have any of these issues been a problem practically, yet? Or are they just potential problems for the future? -- 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/20120610185230.GD16293@debian
Re: Planet policy?
Bastian Venthur wrote: > Why so complicated? Isn't it easier to divide the content > of planet into something like "personal" and "technical" Some people think pdo needs adjusting, some don't. The solution Lars proposed leaves pdo as it is (which satisfies the latter camp, which includes me). -- Jon Dowland -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Planet policy?
Lars Wirzenius liw.iki.fi> writes: > It strikes me, though, that if there's interest, setting up an > "pure.debian.net" with feeds strictly restricted to those that discuss > Debian matters only, should be pretty easy. Anybody interested in > subscribing to it? I think that is a great idea. I wouldn't subscribe to it, under the assumption that p.d.o would be effectively a superset of the content, but it would at least satisfy those who are not interested in non-technical postings. -- Jon Dowland -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: No more bugreports from me.
At 1155730971 past the epoch, Magnus Berg wrote: > Now I suggest that that a script change all e-mail > addresses, in all incoming bugreports, to links that hide > the e-mail address. I would appose this being the default action. I would not appose it being an option, but I would prefer if it was made clear to those who chose to use such an option that bug reports or other information may not be acted upon if the submitter could not be contacted. -- Jon Dowland http://alcopop.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: irc.debian.org
At 1146403978 past the epoch, Paul Johnson wrote: > Why not move it to Jabber? More people use and know what Jabber is > these days than IRC. Really? I'd love to see some figures. -- Jon Dowland http://alcopop.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Complaint about #debian operator
One thing that is obvious from reading that transcript is that you are not familiar with IRC. #debian is a very high-traffic channel and as such, it has to be tightly monitored for on-topic discussion, lest the off-topic stuff drown out cries for help. Not only did you get some helpful answers to your queries, but you didn't take up other opportunities to continue the discussion with a willing participant: namely, messaging det privately. Not knowing how do to so is not much of an excuse[1]. Additionally, your comments to don regarding escalating the matter are most certainly off-topic too. What other course of action do you think would have been reasonable at that point, to keep the channel useful to the majority of people? I don't doubt your sincerity, but someone presented with the irclog but not the comments in your mail could quite easily come to the conclusion that you were a troll specifically setting out to cause disruption. Regarding deadrat, one of the things it's important to learn about IRC is the /ignore command, and when to use it. [1] there are IRC channels setup specifically for beginners. I could be wrong but I think there are some for debian newbies, too. -- Jon Dowland http://jon.dowland.name/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: licence for wiki material (or lack thereof): a desperate plea
On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 12:52:41PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 10:39:19 +0100 Jon Dowland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > I am happy to work on how to do this with moin moin but I need to > > know that others agree this is necessary. > > ...and I'd be happy to work with upstream to incorporate such > improvement. > > But perhaps it is already there - are you aware of the config options > config_license_enabled and config_license_page ? Hi - thank you for your support. I have written up the situation at <http://wiki.debian.org/WikiLicencingTerms>. I am basically awaiting a response from someone in a position to either go ahead with the suggestion or tell me where to stick it :) Regarding the *_licence_* options: I was not aware, thank you. I did some investigation and I believe the terms are actually page_licence_enabled and page_licence_page. However, I have not managed to get these to work myself (although I am no MoinMoin expert). Have you any experience using these options yourself? (I found some discussion about the arch wiki having similar licencing thoughts, although they do not appear to have these variables active either). [With apologies for any duplication.. I am currently facing mail problems.] -- Jon Dowland http://jon.dowland.name/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian Women Software Freedom Day activities
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 03:07:31AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > Shall we switch to usertags too for claiming bugs, then? [I'm convinced I already sent this but it hasn't showed up after >24 hours] usertags would make things quicker and more convenient for non-DDs. -- Jon Dowland http://jon.dowland.name/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
licence for wiki material (or lack thereof): a desperate plea
Hello, We're catching the tail-end of discussions about Debian's up-coming official wiki at <http://wiki.debian.org/>, specifically, the migration of material from the unofficial wiki at <http://wiki.debian.net/>. I'd like to raise the issue of wiki material licencing before it gets too late to do anything about it. Currently, most wikis do not express any licence regarding the material they provide: there is no clear indication how the material might be re-used (e.g. incorporating into debian's official documents) or what terms people can contribute under. wiki.debian.net has a retro-fitted copyright statement at <http://wiki.debian.net/copyright.html> which states only that the copyright is held by 'each author'. There is also a condition of publishing (namely, re-use, Fair Use). This isn't linked to from the edit form (can't confirm whilst it's read-only) so you are only likely to find this if you look for it. A piece of software which was released without any indication of licence would never be considered as a package for debian. I would not like to see anything produced by the wiki to be discounted in a similar way: it might be that the wiki proves to be a very useful tool for writing replacements for GFDL documents for example. It is possible with some wiki technologies to incorporate both a human-aimed indication of licence (all contributions must be made according to these terms...) and a machine-readable indication in the form of licence metadata. I've hacked GPLv2 metadata into mediawiki, for example (proof of concept at <http://wiki.debianflame.org/>). I am happy to work on how to do this with moin moin but I need to know that others agree this is necessary. Is the current statement on wiki.debian.net sufficient? In which case we need to add it to the .org one too. It would really need to be done before any material starts getting added (i.e., before the private discussions about content migration from .net to .org were started). We'd also need to decide on a licence for material. I'd suggest GPLv2, in order to be compatible with e.g. the new maintainer's guide, the developer's reference, etc. [With apologies for the length] -- Jon Dowland http://jon.dowland.name/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
