Re: RFC: Introducing Debian Enhancement Proposals (DEPs)
On Wednesday 16 January 2008, Andreas Tille wrote: On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, Adeodato Simó wrote: Lars Wirzenius, Stefano Zacchiroli and myself are trying to introduce the concept of Debian Enhancement Proposals, Well done! I have only one comment (for the moment): Creating a DEP -- The procedure to create a DEP is simple: send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], stating that you're taking the next I think the initial mail should be sended to debian-devel-announce because there might be a lot of interested people who do not read debian-project. At least I feel DEP0 should go initially to dda. debian-devel-announce is restricted to DD's do we want that for proposing DEP's? On the other hand, finding a DD to forward a proposal would probably be easy enough, so it doesn't matter that much -- Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Making Debian work: a question of trust indeed
On Wednesday 21 November 2007, MJ Ray wrote: martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sam's mail was to James, CC the project. Don't you think that it's a little immature and definitely very premature to discuss the matter before James sent his own reply? Yep. Hopefully a reply will come. I also hope there was an attempt at private communication before that open letter, but there was no indication of it. there was actually, namely the following bit at the end: This is certainly no longer something about which I can afford to wait 2 months between each answer from you. -- Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Debian Maintainers oup
On Thursday 31 May 2007, Simon Huggins wrote: On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 06:37:53PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: First, the Debian Maintainers concept [..] I think the process should involve: - automated application process This shouldn't be tricky. Some webpage where the applicant applies and then they point some developers at a page so that they can recommend/advocate him to be a DM. Very similar to nm.debian.org advocate bits. e.g. https://nm.debian.org/nmadvocate.php?email=hgjghj%40hotmail.com (which I presume is a fake application for NM but still) The applicant would provide their keyid, email, name etc. I think technically this is easy but we need to define who can advocate and how much contact with the potential DM is needed (see below). Basically we currently have the following: 1) find sponsor 2) sponsor checks package and uploads 3) time passes 4) new upload of package goes back to 2 At some point the sponsor typically comes to trust the skills of the sponsoree with that package enough that 2 is little more then a cursory glance. AIUI the DM proposal is nothing more then making that official by giving the sponsoree upload rights for that package. - do we really need to make this more complicated than: 1) sponsor officially declares this person can in his opion handle the sponsored package? 2) sponsoree gets upload rights for that package -- Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) 1. Encrypted mail preferred (GPG KeyID: 0x86624ABB) 2. Plain-text mail recommended since I move html and double format mails to a low priority folder (they're mainly spam) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: ideas....
On Sunday 08 April 2007, Mike Hommey wrote: On Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 11:41:43PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Being paid based on popularity does not alter the fact that some subset of people are being paid, and others are not, for what could be equivalent amounts of work done. Such an imbalance would make Debian unpalatable for me, personally. Other developers may or may not agree, but I for one think that injection of paid work into Debian would make Debian less fun for me. What injection ? There is already people being paid to work on Debian. geese, we wen't over this last time this came up, there's a difference between: 1) Debian paying people to work on Debian, and 2) a 3th party paying people to work on Debian the major one being wether the politics involved with deciding who gets payed become a Debian issue, or remain something outside of Debian -- Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) pgpLpviIfs8mC.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Developers vs Uploaders
On Sunday 18 March 2007, Erinn Clark wrote: - Stratification As a subset of the power structure thing, one of the other issues I foresee is a some developers are more equal than others thing happening. I'm having a hard time thinking of how to explain this, because it's a bit télétubby, as Joss would say, but I think there is ample world history that supports the idea that caste systems negatively impact societies, unless you're in the upper caste. We already have a de facto caste system, if you look around you'll find that pretty much the only people who are DD's are those who package stuff. We have lots of other long-time contributors who translate, write documentation and so on, yet very few of those become DD's. - there's different levels and ways of involvement in the Project, but the current privilige structure does not really reflect this at all, any step in the direction of changing this is a Good Thing IMO. Elsewhere in this thread [1] it was pointed out that we have 2056 unique maintainers. Yet we only have 1013 people who had voting rights at the beginning of march [2], and NM currently lists only 106 canditates in process. - 2056 - 1013 - 106 = 937 non-DD-maintainers who are not in the NM queue. Now I don't know how many of those have been involved with the project long-time, but obviously we have lot's of packaging contributors who don't bother with NM. - Trust and upload rights I don't think upload rights should be given out trivially, the proposal doesn't give out full upload rights, it gives out upload rights on a specific package that the person in question has been maintaining through sponsored uploads for a long time anyway. As documented elsewhere in this thread in such a situation the sponsor normally has gotten to trust the skills of the sponsoree (in respect to that package at least), so that he only gives the package a more and more cursory glance. - in effect al the proposal is doing is make official the de-facto trust that's already present (and doing that in a way that lessens the workload of both long time sponsors, and long-time sponsorees) but I also think that if you've got upload rights, you might as well have full rights and if you've already proven that stuff, then, again, you may as well be a full-fledged developer. Not necessarily, for example, I'm a non-DD maintainer for 1 package (since may 2005). Now my package (desktop-profiles) is about as simple a package as you can have. While I'm perfectly aible to deal with that particular package, it's no given that I'd be able to deal with say the packaging of a library. So whereas I've proven that I'm able to deal with the packaging of 1 particular package, I haven't proven that I'm able to deal with more complex packaging. - while a good case can be made for me getting upload rights for my 1 package and only my 1 package, the same is not true for upload rights on the whole archive. And what happens when the DMs realize they can't vote (but want to) and that they now have to complete NM anyway? the same thing that happens now for translators and other non-DD long time contributors, they either decide that DD-priviliges are worth going through the whole NM-process or not, the difference being that if they decide it's not they can continue working on their package(s) withouth having to jump through any unnecessary hoops for each upload. [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2007/03/msg00084.html [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2007/03/msg9.html [3] https://nm.debian.org/ -- Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) pgpiCcsWU19yT.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Developers vs Uploaders
On Wednesday 14 March 2007, Bastian Venthur wrote: Anthony Towns schrieb: My theory is that we should do something like this: 1) create a class of contributors called debian maintainers My first thought: do we really need this new class of contributors? I mean how many people do you currently know fitting in this category (don't like to become DD just maintainers). I guess there will be some, Well me for one: I've been actively involved with Debian for years (as a translator since march 2003, and as non-DD maintainer of 1 simple package since may 2005). Despite having been involved for years I still haven't bothered to go through the whole NM-process, and that's not because I think I can't pass it, but simply because I'm not looking forward to starting a long, drawn-out process (average time to complete NM is what? 6 months to a year?) As to why being able to upload my 1 package and only my one package would be a positive thing, consider the following: Several times now my sponsor was travelling, just plain busy or otherwise unavailable (I think the worst such delay was about a month), that's not worldshocking but it does increase turnaround. Also not being able to upload directly I tend to pool non-critical uploads more then I otherwise would (for instance I won't bug my sponsor with a package update containing just 1 new debconf translation), again leading to turnaround being slower. - is this critical? No, if I had a critical bug and my sponsor is unavailable I could probably find some DD willing to upload quickly enough - is this suboptimal? IMHO definately My second thought: Should we really allow anonymous people to upload packages? Shouldn't they at least prove that they are who they claim to be (via gpg-key singed by an existing DD)? This proposal has effects on 2 kinds of contributors: 1) long-time proven non-DD maintainers (for some definition of long-time and proven) - they get a more effective workflow 2) the DD's sponsoring the upload of those maintainers - they get to reduce their workload so IMO we're not talking about 'anonymous people' at all. As for the 'having a signed gpg-key', I don't see any problem having that as a requirement, anyone who's been actively involved with Debian for a while is unlikely not to meet this anyway. Who is responsible if a maintainer uploads malware, the one who recommended him? Can we really expect those DDs to take full responsibility if they aren't forced to check every package like they currently have to do when sponsoring? Currently you often have a situation where a particular DD has been sponsoring uploads for a particular package by a particular non-DD-maintainer for a long time. My guess is that in most such cases sufficient trust will have built that the DD will mostly upload the update after a cursory glance (especially if he's otherwise busy). This is basic human nature and so probably pointless to fight against. What is our current NM-process for? Especially all those tests you have to go through. Is it just for the right to vote and the access to our machines? Being a full DD grants AFAIK the following: - voting rights - access to debian machines - access to debian-private - being able to NMU any package - being able to introduce new packages without having to find a sponsor - debian email adres - (I also seem to recall something about subcriptions to... was it lwn?) that's a lot broader then being able to upload new versions of a particular package -- Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) pgp6QIQ2QIvqt.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Developers vs Uploaders
On Thursday 15 March 2007, Clint Adams wrote: How about going after Try hard to improve things, but don't shake the house too much while at it? There is a cost to improving things, and if you have to disturb everyone to do it, then that cost is high. It may not be worth it. What? How does that not apply to the very DM proposal that you are defending? Nobody has convinced me that the added bureaucracy What added bureaucracy? It would seem to me that it would actually lead to less bureaucracy overall If all you want to do is maintain 1 or 2 packages you have 2 options: 1) go through the whole NM proces: - makes NM take longer for everyone, as there's more people needing to be assigned an AM, so waiting times increase - lot's of them give up half way through (or that's my impression) - IMO this is a net waste of time if you only want to maintain a couple of packages 2) keep uploading through a sponsor: - non-optimal, delays can be somewhat frustrating at times (both for people reporting bugs, or sending in translations, and for the non-DD maintainer) - DD's have to spend time sponsoring, likely taking away time from other Debian stuff. This proposal would likely: - free up time for AM's, who will only have to deal with those that need full DD rights, thus also lessening the average time to pass through NM - free up time for sponsors, who have don't have to waste time sponsoring old hands that haven't bothered with NM - get more people involved as it lowers the barrier to becoming an official part of Debian (that's important in that it makes people feel part of the project, makes them feel that their effort is appreciated), making it more likely they will both get and stay involved. and lengthened power hierarchy are costs which are outweighed by whatever advantages you perceive in this plan. It makes the power hierarchy more fine-grained, and that's generally a Good Thing (as you don't need to give people wider access then they need) -- Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) pgpAeseLqfwhR.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Call for a new DPL mediation ... This will be the only thread i will reply to in the next time about this issue.
On Tuesday 20 June 2006 19:16, Mike Hommey wrote: On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 12:53:00PM +0200, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tuesday 20 June 2006 11:49, Andreas Schuldei wrote: * cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060620 11:02]: judging from that Sven was definately in the wrong, of course that log doesn't give any explanation at all of Sven's side of the story, so it doesn't give enough information to get a complete picture. if you start only now to form your picture you seem to have hidden under a rock for some time. er, I think you misunderstood what I was talking about regarding getting a complete picture: I'm not talking about the sven losing his commit rights on d-i issue here. I'm talking about the _unrelated_ sven alledgly abusing his admin rights on the alioth kernel project issue. I don't follow the kernel list, haven't seen noice about it anywhere else that I can remember, and the IRC-log quoted only shows 1 side of the story hence not having a complete picture. You obviously came out of your rock recently. The log is a part of what has emerged from the past months worth of sven vs d-i/d-k/debian thread*s* I've just searched my -boot, -devel, and -kernel archives for that URL, the only match I'm finding is in this thread. So to back up your assertion that I couldn't possibly have missed it could you please provide some references to the lots of times it's apparently been mentioned before? -- Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) pgpRpxrsm8QPe.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Call for a new DPL mediation ... This will be the only thread i will reply to in the next time about this issue.
On Wednesday 21 June 2006 11:07, Frans Pop wrote: On Wednesday 21 June 2006 10:42, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote: So to back up your assertion that I couldn't possibly have missed it could you please provide some references to the lots of times it's apparently been mentioned before? AFAIK it has previously only been posted in the open bug against the TC for this issue (#366938). ah ok, I'll go read the discussion there now, thanks -- Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) pgpAxuUpfrOaY.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Call for a new DPL mediation ... This will be the only thread i will reply to in the next time about this issue.
On Tuesday 20 June 2006 08:08, Mike Hommey wrote: On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 10:43:35PM -0700, Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 09:12:15PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 04:53:18PM +0200, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - AFAIK he hasn't ever abused his d-i commit rights (when he had them) Just for the record, he may have not abused his d-i commit rights but did abuse his d-k svn admin rights. two wrongs don't make a right, that'd be a sepperate issue (and since it's a log from march I'm assuming it got resolved somehow?) How, specifically? http://www.wolffelaar.nl/~jeroen/sven-revokes-js-svn-from-kernel judging from that Sven was definately in the wrong, of course that log doesn't give any explanation at all of Sven's side of the story, so it doesn't give enough information to get a complete picture. -- Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) pgpCgSw0lRwTD.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Call for a new DPL mediation ... This will be the only thread i will reply to in the next time about this issue.
On Tuesday 20 June 2006 11:49, Andreas Schuldei wrote: * cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060620 11:02]: judging from that Sven was definately in the wrong, of course that log doesn't give any explanation at all of Sven's side of the story, so it doesn't give enough information to get a complete picture. if you start only now to form your picture you seem to have hidden under a rock for some time. er, I think you misunderstood what I was talking about regarding getting a complete picture: I'm not talking about the sven losing his commit rights on d-i issue here. I'm talking about the _unrelated_ sven alledgly abusing his admin rights on the alioth kernel project issue. I don't follow the kernel list, haven't seen noice about it anywhere else that I can remember, and the IRC-log quoted only shows 1 side of the story hence not having a complete picture. the goal in this is not to find ѕomeone to blame or find out who is in the wrong, but to decide on a way to get debian to waste less time and get relevant stuff done. couldn't agree more To me it looks like you came out from under your stone just recently and share your thoughts for a change. As explained above I think you misunderstood my previous message -- Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) pgpA8XP2jDkFh.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Call for a new DPL mediation ... This will be the only thread i will reply to in the next time about this issue.
On Tuesday 20 June 2006 06:32, Ean Schuessler wrote: cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote: - AFAIK nobody is arguing that Sven's patches aren't up to snuff technically - AFAIK he hasn't ever abused his d-i commit rights (when he had them) These are critical questions. As an uninvolved third-party I have still not been able to determine why his access was stripped in the first place. If Sven makes critical (or even genuinely useful) contributions to the PPC port and there is no replacement for him then there must be a really great reason to suspend his access. Did he do something nasty to the codebase? nope, the message regarding him resiging is [1], frans explains his reasoning for removing Sven in [2], and [3] is Sven's take on [2] (with a lot of context regarding when he send [1]). [4] has Sven explaining how he meant [1] [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2006/03/msg01075.html [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2006/05/msg00300.html [3] http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2006/05/msg00316.html [4] http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2006/04/msg00949.html -- Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) pgplrAqvhn5P9.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Call for a new DPL mediation ... This will be the only thread i will reply to in the next time about this issue.
On Monday 19 June 2006 08:27, MJ Ray wrote: Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Also, you say i have been replaced, and this means you speak about Colin Watson [...] Either that's a guess, or telepathy. I'd guess it's a guess, but either way, it's not going to help anything change. Either the guess is right, which makes it a pre-emptive attack, or the guess is wrong, which makes it irrelevant, or it's telepathy, which will scare the pants off 90%. see the thread starting at [1], part of that thread is a discussion between Sven and Colin about what the open issues on powerpc are. [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2006/03/msg01198.html Now, i am curious, did the DPL ever pass to you the compromise proposal i made to them, and if so, what had you against it. The proposal was : 1) i work on minor issues that needs fixing, partman-prep and apus supoprt, and maybe one other i don't remember now. 2) i don't post on debian-boot, and don't interact in issues where i disagree with you. 3) you reinstate my commit access, and don't make any more demands on me, and don't get upset when i state my opinion on other forums where i don't expect you to be. regarding 2) I'm guessing the intention is _not_ to stop replying to powerpc-specific d-i bugs? Considering bugreports and replies get send to debian-boot how does this fit, do replies to bug simply not count or did you plan to reassign powerpc specific bugs to something that doesn't get send to -boot? Will nothing less than commit access solve this complaint? I asked that in another message, but it's unanswered at the time of writing. I really don't see how refusing Sven commit access alleviates any problems /providing he holds to point 1 above/: - AFAIK nobody is arguing that Sven's patches aren't up to snuff technically - AFAIK he hasn't ever abused his d-i commit rights (when he had them) = so IMO there's no _technical_ reason not to give him back his commit rights AFAICT that leaves to limit the contact between Sven and the d-i team members he doesn't get along with as the only supposed reason to not give him back his commit rights. And I don't buy that one, I can't see any meaningfull difference in the amount of contact between: a) having Sven commit through a middleman (current situation) b) having him commit directly The same patches get committed in both cases, and in option a) credit is (presumably) given to Sven so his name appears just as often in commit logs. I don't see what compromise is being offered here. As far as I recall, there was no problem about the first two points, while point three is all for Sven Luther. I'd expect any compromise solution to have some give on both sides. The above solution proposed by Sven has that: - on Sven's side by: - clearly delimiting what he can work on and - not posting on debian-boot at all - and on the d-i team's side by: - letting Sven commit directly instead of through a middleman (i.e. not creating roadblocks on the technical side of his d-i work) So we have: 1) Sven not posting on boot and limiting what he works on, but having commit rights - this limits the social side of Sven's d-i work and thus adresses the problem directly 2) Sven posting on boot to his hearts content, but not having commit rights - this changes the way Sven doess d-i work on a technical level by putting up a roadblock - does absolutely nothing to adress the social problem, indeed it problably increases it as it adds a requirement for social interaction for every technical contribution Sven makes - creates extra work for both Sven and the middleman - adds an otherwise unnecary delay for every fix done by Sven The current 'solution' is IMO akin to telling Sven yes you can participate in the d-i party, provided you stay outside and do it through the window. Which I think sucks big time as both a solution and a compromise. -- Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) pgptXphz6PVjK.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposal: The future of the Debian NM process
On Wednesday 17 May 2006 01:27, Christoph Berg wrote: Re: cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) 2006-05-16 [EMAIL PROTECTED] what's the rationale for needing a 2nd package? e.g. I currently maintain 1 small simple sponsered package, I also have contributed for several years as a translator. If we're introducing a new stage with upload rights for specific packages why shouldn't I be able to get upload rights for my 1 package? That's definitely a point to be discussed. I'm reluctant to give upload rights to people who haven't much experience yet and the number of packages certainly limits experience in terms of problems you have encountered and mastered. If you've been maintaining a single package for some time, you should definitely be allowed to upload it, right so we're on the same page: if we're talking 'upload rights to a specific' package then it's 'packaging experience with that specific package' that counts. Hence any experience with a second package shouldn't be required for getting upload rights to a first package. If on the other hand you've already demonstrated packaging skills with x packages then it should be easier to get upload rights for the package x+1. though there has to be a lower limit on the involement (like the mentioned 3 months). We should find some guidelines which measure that. Yes, that is a very greyish area. I agree with a lower limit, but I think it would be better of to specify it in terms of certain number of uploads as opposed to some time limit: I might have done 1 upload and just wait a 3 months, or I could have done several uploads over that same period - that would lead to: - first x packages: needs to have passed lower limit of experience with package in question (for whatever test of 'experience' we end up with) - further packages: need to find sponsor to do initial upload, but DM should be able to get upload rights ASAP after that -- Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) 1. Encrypted mail preferred (GPG KeyID: 0x86624ABB) 2. Plain-text mail recommended since I move html and double format mails to a low priority folder (they're mainly spam) pgpwT4mc4dL0g.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposal: The future of the Debian NM process
On Tuesday 16 May 2006 05:04, Christoph Berg wrote: The process I propose looks like: 2. contributes to Debian: - work on the package (bug fixing, new upstream releases) with sponsored uploads - 2nd package with 1 upload (e.g. not a totally trivial package, a rule of thumb could be like at least 6 uploads for all packages in total) - some other contributions (e.g. bugs on other packages) what's the rationale for needing a 2nd package? e.g. I currently maintain 1 small simple sponsered package, I also have contributed for several years as a translator. If we're introducing a new stage with upload rights for specific packages why shouldn't I be able to get upload rights for my 1 package? -- Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) 1. Encrypted mail preferred (GPG KeyID: 0x86624ABB) 2. Plain-text mail recommended since I move html and double format mails to a low priority folder (they're mainly spam) pgpCE8VTlawDB.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: irc.debian.org
On Wednesday 03 May 2006 01:19, Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 03:52:33PM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote: On Tuesday 02 May 2006 08:40, Cord Beermann wrote: Why not move it to Jabber? More people use and know what Jabber is these days than IRC. Jabber doesn't have any useable non-graphic Clients. So write one or grab one of the existing ones and make it not suck. As it is, IRC *does* have non-sucking non-graphic clients. If you think people should switch to Jabber, I think you ought to write such a client, not someone who's not interested in using Jabber in the first place. can you give a good enough definition of 'non-sucking' to allow that? Move on to what? A protocol that broadcasts whether I'm online to everyone I've ever chatted with? it doesn't: - your presence only gets broadcasts to people you've explicitly authorized to subscribe to your presence (and you can de-authorize people at any time) - furthermore you can actually selectively send your presence to people, allowing you to present different presences-modes to different people at the same time. -- Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) 1. Encrypted mail preferred (GPG KeyID: 0x86624ABB) 2. Plain-text mail recommended since I move html and double format mails to a low priority folder (they're mainly spam) pgphj0rDmTMez.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: irc.debian.org
On Tuesday 02 May 2006 12:36, Jon Dowland wrote: 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. can't find much hard numbers, let along comparisons between IRC-use and Jabber use, but here is the general info regarding jabber use I found: - jabber.com appearently had 4 milion licensed users back in 2003 [1] with an additional 6 milion estimated open source users at that time thus surpassing the number of ICQ users [2] - since then we've had xmpp (the jabber protocol) published as RFC, - Jabber Journal 23 [3] mentions that there are over 10.000 activer jabber servers on the public network (so not counting those behind company firewalls), the same page also names a number of big deployments (such as France Telecom, Bellsouth, Orange, ATT, EDS, FedEx, HP, Oracle, and Sun) - Apple added xmpp support to iChat [3] [9]. - googletalk uses xmpp [4] and is now federated [10] - according to the latest jabber journal IBM is adding xmpp support to Lotus Sametime [4] - sun's IM server uses xmpp [5] - [6] lists 13 different jabber server implementations (of which 7 are proprietary ones from different companies), [7] lists a gazillion clients, [8] lists a gazillion software libraries for using xmpp [1] http://www.jabber.com/index.cgi?CONTENT_ID=357 [2] http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/applications/0,39020384,39117160,00.htm [3] http://www.jabber.org/journal/2005-06-24.shtml [4] http://www.jabber.org/journal/2006-03-24.shtml [5] http://www.sun.com/software/products/instant_messaging/ [6] http://www.jabber.org/software/servers.shtml [7] http://www.jabber.org/software/clients.shtml [8] http://www.jabber.org/software/libraries.shtml [9] http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/ichat/ [10] http://googletalk.blogspot.com/2006/01/xmpp-federation.html -- Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) 1. Encrypted mail preferred (GPG KeyID: 0x86624ABB) 2. Plain-text mail recommended since I move html and double format mails to a low priority folder (they're mainly spam) pgp9CJZCtyUUI.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Third call for votes for the debian project leader election 2006
On Thursday 06 April 2006 15:29, JC Helary wrote: Nobody's saying that you are going to stop being a developer. You can be proud of what you do being a developer. You've earned that status. But requiring people who are not software developers to understand they suddenly have become developers because Debian is special is a little far fetched. The bug is in the relation between from new maintainer-to developer and the corollary other contributors don't _need_ to become developers. I really don't think that the current terminology is gonna be a problem IF the NM-page make it clear that the process is open to non-package maintainers. Now obviously the current current NM-corner doesn't do a good enough job of that, which is a reason to work on rewording it so the page does make clear that the process _is_ open to non-package-maintainers (something that's being worked on elsewhere in this thread) I think it should be apperant at this point that changing the terminology from 'New Maintainer' and 'Debian Developer' to something else is controversial enough that we're not likely to generate a consensus on it any time soon. So could we please focus on the changes we can get consensus on? Also even if -from an outsiders perspective- the jargon used is quirky and strange. I have to wonder: if one is not even willing to look at the jargon used by the project from the projects point of view. Then why on earth would one be applying to NM-process in the first place? And how on earth would one expect to pass the philosyphy and procedures part of the process? -- Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) 1. Encrypted mail preferred (GPG KeyID: 0x86624ABB) 2. Plain-text mail recommended since I move html and double format mails to a low priority folder (they're mainly spam) pgpSEgOtNWSZg.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Third call for votes for the debian project leader election 2006
On Monday 03 April 2006 09:15, Steve Langasek wrote: On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 07:27:05AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: Clytie Siddall [EMAIL PROTECTED] I don't understand why this election is restricted to Debian Developers. What about all the other people who regularly contribute time and effort to the Debian project? This is a known bug, I think, but I don't remember any of this year's candidates pledging to solve it. Er. Known bugs are a subset of those things which are bugs; I don't see many people who actually think it's a bug that only full members of the project are allowed to vote. (Most developers seem to agree that there are bugs in our process for integrating new members into the project, but that's not the same as saying that non-DDs should be allowed to vote -- voting rights are one of the few privileges that are reserved only for developers, and arguably the most important.) the bug would be the perception that you can't become a DD (=full member) when you're a translator/documentation writer, which is largely a consequence of the 'developer' part of the name. Now how easy it is for a pure translator/documentation writer/... to pass NM, I don't know, but from what I hear it _is_ possible with the NM process nowadays (though again the maintainer is a disnomer in that case). -- Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) 1. Encrypted mail preferred (GPG KeyID: 0x86624ABB) 2. Plain-text mail recommended since I move html and double format mails to a low priority folder (they're mainly spam) pgpmsaWXzFT16.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian Project Leader report for 2005-04-24
On Monday 25 April 2005 14:10, Hamish Moffatt wrote: I think the request is ok (and the release managers have requested the same before, quite reasonably). My complaint was Branden's threat: if his email triggers more uploads, he'll stop sending emails. er, no, if it triggers an upload storm, he'll stop reporting on release-issues in his emails, not stop sending mails all together. Quite a different thing no? -- Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) 1. Encrypted mail preferred (GPG KeyID: 0x86624ABB) 2. Plain-text mail recommended since I move html and double format mails to a low priority folder (they're mainly spam) pgpgJhmRhXlTo.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian Project Leader report for 2005-04-24
On Monday 25 April 2005 15:40, Hamish Moffatt wrote: On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 02:36:35PM +0200, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote: On Monday 25 April 2005 14:10, Hamish Moffatt wrote: I think the request is ok (and the release managers have requested the same before, quite reasonably). My complaint was Branden's threat: if his email triggers more uploads, he'll stop sending emails. er, no, if it triggers an upload storm, he'll stop reporting on release-issues in his emails, not stop sending mails all together. Quite a different thing no? Not really. It's still I'll-take-something-away-if-you-don't-behave. I disagree, it's just a I'm gonna try this, if I find it is counterproductive, I won't do it again in the future which IMO is just common sense. As the release managers are doing a fine job of communicating themselves true :- ) -- Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) 1. Encrypted mail preferred (GPG KeyID: 0x86624ABB) 2. Plain-text mail recommended since I move html and double format mails to a low priority folder (they're mainly spam) pgpcR89JVI3ZD.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Poll results: User views on the FDL issue
On Tuesday 19 April 2005 07:45, Glenn Maynard wrote: On Mon, Apr 18, 2005 at 10:13:33PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote: I strongly suggest reading the mail log, since many of the full responses are more interesting than the overall results. I read it, and didn't find anything of interest; except that it clearly points out a communication problem only a tiny handful of them had anything beyond single-word answers, and most of those are weak arguments that have been made and debunked many times already. right, so we have a situation where we have good reasons for moving GFDL docs to non-free, but we've failed to communicate these reasons to our user base. Given the knee-jerk reactions of our users exposed by this survey, we should probably do something thing to adress this. Is there an overview page of arguments (and debunkments) somewhere, that we can point people to? Or is everyone currently on their own in finding the pearls of wisdom buried in long threads on mailinglists most of our users don't follow? -- Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) 1. Encrypted mail preferred (GPG KeyID: 0x86624ABB) 2. Plain-text mail recommended since I move html and double format mails to a low priority folder (they're mainly spam) pgpiNvIHEN82f.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Official Swedish Debian Website
On Friday 25 February 2005 06:06, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 03:25:04AM +0100, Per Edin wrote: Thank you for your support for Debian. You are aware that the official Debian web site is available in Swedish, right? See: http://www.nl.debian.org/index.sv.html incidentely loosing th .nl in the above urls works also (and is probably a lot easier to remembe :) -- Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) 1. Encrypted mail preferred (GPG KeyID: 0x86624ABB) 2. Plain-text mail recommended since I move html and double format mails to a low priority folder (they're mainly spam) pgpLpC55nO638.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: New Front Desk member
On Monday 31 January 2005 14:38, Steve Langasek wrote: On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 02:13:12PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote: also sprach Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.01.31.1258 +0100]: If you don't want to get flamed, try to make a point of reading the thread you're replying to, as using he or she was *not* the suggestion of the woman (which I guess is what you mean by feminist) who started this thread. Onward in the noble fight for singular they, Singular they is by no means the only contestant, see the Gender Neutral Pronoun FAQ [1], or [2] which gives an overview of t (9!) possibille approaches I rather think that rewriting to avoid the problem where possible is the only solution we can hope to get concensus on. If we can't do that my vote (FWIW) goes to using one of the 'newly' invented pronouns (spivak pronouns, zie/zir, or sie/hir), which seems to be the preferred solution in the different queer en transgender communities i've come across over the years (those communities are IMO arguably those to whom the matter matters most) [1] http://www.aetherlumina.com/gnp/ [2] http://www.worldwidewords.org/articles/genpr.htm -- Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) 1. Encrypted mail preferred (GPG KeyID: 0x86624ABB) 2. Plain-text mail recommended since I move html and double format mails to a low priority folder (they're mainly spam) pgpWC3oDN5JTo.pgp Description: PGP signature
