Re: Debian companies group
On Fri, Sep 06, 2013 at 11:47:59AM -0400, david...@ling.ohio-state.edu wrote: > >>so the list would be a safe forum for companies with strict > >>policies against sharing information, to seek help from other > >>companies (with all privy parties being companies of some minimum > >>size, and employing some minimum number of debian project members). > > > >Nice spin you put on the statement, although not backed my email. If > >this is how you prefer to discuss, don't be surprised to not see any > >answer. > > afaict, i merely compiled several statements of yours into one, > without changing the meaning. Well, then it shows how much a meaning can change when quotes are taken out of context and then combined. > are you saying that the project is informed because some members are > sure to be subscribed? i do not think that informs the project. No, I'm only saying that the DPL is informed. Michael -- Michael Meskes Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org) Michael at BorussiaFan dot De, Meskes at (Debian|Postgresql) dot Org Jabber: michael.meskes at gmail dot com VfL Borussia! Força Barça! Go SF 49ers! Use Debian GNU/Linux, PostgreSQL -- 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/20130908100841.ga22...@feivel.credativ.lan
Re: Debian companies group
Le Fri, Sep 06, 2013 at 09:07:22AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
>
> Regarding the secrecy requirement, I can totally see how sketching a
> business model involving several business entities on one of the two
> examples above could require some secrecy. I prefer to see it happening
> on a Debian-provided list where the only criteria is related to the size
> of companies, rather than in private discussions between a self-selected
> set of companies.
Hi Lucas and Michael,
here are brief comments that I hope to be useful despite I have no stakes in
this initiative.
The term "secrecy" is vague and may misrepresent what you are proposing. If
the companies list would function with a secrecy agreement like debian-private,
then we could end up in the same absurd situations where people start an
intersting technical discussion that did not need to be secret, and that
becomes hard to integrate or be summarised outside until it is made sure that
every participant agrees. I do not recommend this policy. Maybe simpler
restrictions (no archive, moderation, ...) would also satisfy the participants ?
Obviously, companies that are fine with public archive, high-traffic, long
threads and stochastic follow-up are already with us on debian-devel... In
that sense, for a new list there is by definition the need for an entry bar
that limits the number of messages and ensures that a large number of
subscribers are interested in reading them (let's not require participants to
be proficient with procmail). Perhaps if you set a given (and flexible) number
of goals ("hardware support" and "long term support" sound excellent to start
with), and make them public, then you will reduce some of the crispation of not
being able to know what is going on the list in real time.
Have a nice week-end, and good luck for your project.
--
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
--
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/20130907061851.gb23...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: Debian companies group
On Fri, 6 Sep 2013, Michael Meskes wrote: how do you envision a company with such restrictive policies giving back to the developer and user community? It amazes me how much time we spend discussing he "secret" nature of the list although it was more than once said that this is not necessarily meant to stay that way. i would question the likelihood that discussions which begin in privileged secrecy, and which include parties accustomed to that privilege, will shed that same privilege by general consensus. perhaps others have had experience quite different from mine, which leads them to expect otherwise. but, needless to say, i know only my own. To answer your question, some topics simply cannot be put into the open, but I can easily see these restrictive companies becoming more open once they see where this is headed. duly noted. you seem more optimistic about this than i am. so the list would be a safe forum for companies with strict policies against sharing information, to seek help from other companies (with all privy parties being companies of some minimum size, and employing some minimum number of debian project members). Nice spin you put on the statement, although not backed my email. If this is how you prefer to discuss, don't be surprised to not see any answer. afaict, i merely compiled several statements of yours into one, without changing the meaning. and i did so in the interest of clarity, not obfuscation. even if i wanted to mislead, i believe it would be foolish to try in public view. but it seems i have offended you, which is something i have been trying not to do. i have read over the sentence several times, and i must confess i still cannot see the spin in it. could it be located somewhere else? either way, i am truly sorry to have caused you to doubt my sincerity. regarding such special needs, i can think of a few projects that could use hosting that provides a degree of confidentiality not provided by the google-way. do you suppose that google could make an exception for them? maybe forgo a little data-mining, deny access to three-letter agencies, etc? As a matter of fact I do expect my private discussion remain private forever. That they don't may or may not be Google's fault. But where's your point? i meant to provide an analogy, by substituting a more conventional institution for the debian project, so that you might be less astonished at encountering criticism here. does it puzzle you more, to encounter some resistance to secrecy here? In a way it does, after all nothing is withheld from the project. Keep in mind that the DPL is subscribed, too. are you saying that the project is informed because some members are sure to be subscribed? i do not think that informs the project. unless and until the list-internal consensus opens the list, i take it that such members will be expected *not* to inform the project at large. if it seems to you like i am splitting hairs, here, i think we have located an interesting point of contention. because that is precisely how your claim to the contrary strikes me (assuming i have understood it correctly). Taking about the DPL, why is nobody complaining that lea...@debian.org is not public? Relax, I'm just kidding. i sincerely hope that other non-public aspects receive all due scrutiny as well. don't you? You might want to search for those in the publicly available archives. is this two jokes in a row? or just a joke-and-a-half? ;) best wishes, wes -- 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/alpine.deb.2.00.1309060950400.22...@brutus.ling.ohio-state.edu
Re: Debian companies group
On Fri, 6 Sep 2013, david...@ling.ohio-state.edu wrote: On Fri, 6 Sep 2013, Michael Meskes wrote: regarding such special needs, i can think of a few projects that could use hosting that provides a degree of confidentiality not provided by the google-way. do you suppose that google could make an exception for them? maybe forgo a little data-mining, deny access to three-letter agencies, etc? As a matter of fact I do expect my private discussion remain private forever. That they don't may or may not be Google's fault. But where's your point? i meant to provide an analogy, by substituting a more conventional institution for the debian project, so that you might be less astonished at encountering criticism here. furthermore,... On Fri, 6 Sep 2013, Michael Meskes continued (though i snipped it in my reply, failing to understand its relevance): Do you want to tell us that said three-letter agency has access to private Debian information? no. i would not know, and i meant to imply nothing of the kind. the analogy must have been far less clear than i imagined. to elaborate: the analogy substitutes not only google for debian, but also google's characteristic tendency to share information with TLAs for debian's characteristic tendency to share information with the public at large. -wes -- 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/alpine.deb.2.00.1309061228370.22...@brutus.ling.ohio-state.edu
Re: Debian companies group
> how do you envision a company with such restrictive policies giving > back to the developer and user community? It amazes me how much time we spend discussing he "secret" nature of the list although it was more than once said that this is not necessarily meant to stay that way. To answer your question, some topics simply cannot be put into the open, but I can easily see these restrictive companies becoming more open once they see where this is headed. > so the list would be a safe forum for companies with strict policies > against sharing information, to seek help from other companies (with > all privy parties being companies of some minimum size, and employing > some minimum number of debian project members). Nice spin you put on the statement, although not backed my email. If this is how you prefer to discuss, don't be surprised to not see any answer. > regarding such special needs, i can think of a few projects that could > use hosting that provides a degree of confidentiality not provided by > the google-way. do you suppose that google could make an exception > for them? maybe forgo a little data-mining, deny access to > three-letter agencies, etc? As a matter of fact I do expect my private discussion remain private forever. That they don't may or may not be Google's fault. But where's your point? Do you want to tell us that said three-letter agency has access to private Debian information? Or that we shouldnÄt care about privacy because they get everything anyway? > does it puzzle you more, to encounter some resistance to secrecy here? In a way it does, after all nothing is withheld from the project. Keep in mind that the DPL is subscribed, too. Taking about the DPL, why is nobody complaining that lea...@debian.org is not public? Relax, I'm just kidding. > i sincerely hope that other non-public aspects receive all due > scrutiny as well. > > don't you? You might want to search for those in the publicly available archives. Michael -- Michael Meskes Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org) Michael at BorussiaFan dot De, Meskes at (Debian|Postgresql) dot Org Jabber: michael.meskes at gmail dot com VfL Borussia! Força Barça! Go SF 49ers! Use Debian GNU/Linux, PostgreSQL -- 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/20130906122940.gd25...@feivel.credativ.lan
Re: Debian companies group
On Fri, Sep 06, 2013 at 09:07:22AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > But there are other ways for business entities to help Debian. I can > think of at least two: Just off the top of my head, two more: - OEM work to have Debian pre-installed on machines available on the market - certification "lobbying": back when I was DPL I've spoken a number of times with companies interested in proposing Debian to their customers, but unable to do so because Debian is not $foo certified Both kind of activities are not particularly suitable for volunteers, because they're definitely not fun / exciting tasks to spend your volunteer time on. On the other hand, they are activities that, if pursued, would benefit the Debian ecosystem, and around which companies can expect to find sustainable business models. Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli . . . . . . . z...@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o Former Debian Project Leader . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o . « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club » signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian companies group
On 05/09/13 at 10:48 +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > I suggest one reason may be a lack of interest by the project and that > consultants have moved to discussing debian in other places than the > project lists, such as social media. > > There could probably be uses for -consultants if project leaders showed > a fraction of the interest they have in -companies. -consultants has > 400 members, which seems a much better starting point for development > than a list of 4 members. > > It feels a bit like the project is lusting after companies who aren't > interested in that way, rather than treating the lovers it knows well. Hi, First, I think that it's extremely important that Debian encourages the existence of a network of business entities able to provide support or specific developments around Debian. That's the role of the community around debian-consultants@ IMHO. But there are other ways for business entities to help Debian. I can think of at least two: - long term support. It is well known that our "next release"+1y support duration is too short for many use cases. We do not seem to be able to find volunteers to work on improving on that. - hardware test kit. I remember discussions at DebConf 8 where Bdale explained that labelling servers "Debian ready" is something that companies such as HP would like to do, but currently can't due to the lack of software and testing procedure for that. (My memory might not be totally accurate on that, but I think that was the idea.) Despite existing since 1997, -consultants@ failed to make progress on those two points. Instead of throwing so much negative energy at -companies@, I really think that we should encourage this initiative. If it fails, too bad, but at least we will have tried. Regarding the secrecy requirement, I can totally see how sketching a business model involving several business entities on one of the two examples above could require some secrecy. I prefer to see it happening on a Debian-provided list where the only criteria is related to the size of companies, rather than in private discussions between a self-selected set of companies. Also, in order to be endorsed by Debian as something official (e.g. "Debian hardware test kit" rather than "Hardware test kit for Debian from FoobarInc."), the results of this initiative should be designed in an open way, so I expect that the discussions happen on other Debian lists as soon as reasonably possible. Finally, leader@ is subscribed to -companies@, and I will make sure that the -companies@ group reports to the project when it's reasonable to do so. Lucas -- 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/20130906070722.ga8...@xanadu.blop.info
Re: Debian companies group
On Thu, 5 Sep 2013, david...@ling.ohio-state.edu wrote: On Thu, 5 Sep 2013, Michael Meskes wrote: On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 03:31:05PM -0400, david...@ling.ohio-state.edu wrote: Who? A companies community should only contain companies. what kind of community contains only companies? such a thing does not warrant the term 'community'. i worked for too long in a marketing department to swallow this metaphor. I don't understand that at all. Companies work together on a daily base, why shouldn't they here? Or is it just the wording? i would say it is the meaning. to pick one difference, there is more to a community than working together for a profit motive. more to the point, perhaps: a community cultivates the commons, or that which belongs to all, for the benefit of all. or so i imagine. otherwise communities would be called syndicates. but we can agree to disagree on that. best regards, wes -- 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/alpine.deb.2.00.1309051855510.13...@brutus.ling.ohio-state.edu
Re: Debian companies group
hi michael. On Thu, 5 Sep 2013, Michael Meskes wrote: On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 03:31:05PM -0400, david...@ling.ohio-state.edu wrote: tldnr: what sorts of transactions are supposed to take place on the closed debian-companies list? how will their secret-from-users nature empower users? how will their secret-from-project-members empower the debian project? At the risk of repating myself over and over again. The secret status has only one reason. There are companies out there with very restictive rules about public communication. I am hoping we could get some of those to join by keeping the list closed. my intent is not to try your patience. but the question you answer, here, does not appear to be among the questions asked in the tldnr which you quote. regardless, i was indeed uncertain about the precise rationale for a closed list. thank you for reiterating it for my benefit. i must remark, though, that the "what's in it for the debian user and developer community" questions remain unanswered. maybe there are some benefits which, while obvious to you, escape my notice? but in fact if it was, how is it in the interest of users, for the debian project to collude in the concealment of companies' relationships from users? I beg your pardon, but I find it difficult to digest what you're saying. i was asking how it empowered users, to enable companies to maintain their chosen restrictive communications policies. how do you envision a company with such restrictive policies giving back to the developer and user community? and am i to understand that companies *would* nonetheless discuss such things on a mailing list open to an entire class of competitors? Depending on what it is yes. Of course no company would discuss its own strategy with competitors, but there are things that might benefit all but only be reachable by joining forces. Just as an example, assume there was a hardware vendor willing to put Debian on its boxes but requiring local expertise for helping their customers before doing so. Now one company may have the relationship in place, but at the same time may not be able to deliver what's needed. Why shouldn't they ask for help from competitors, because after all it'll help their own business as well. thank you for constructing the example. i think i now have a better idea of where you are coming from. so the list would be a safe forum for companies with strict policies against sharing information, to seek help from other companies (with all privy parties being companies of some minimum size, and employing some minimum number of debian project members). would it be wise to hold such a discussion on a mailing list open, again, to an entire class of competitors? Again depends, most companies cannot do all that's needed in such a large scale project. So wh not asking for help? i see now. the example helped a lot. thank you. if a company's resistance to deploying debian is misguided, why not crowd-source the arguments, on an open list? This is already possible, but my gut feeling is that it didn't bring us where we should be. We as in Debian. you are measuring where debian should be by market share, or something like that? fair enough. you know, the way a *community* does? This is why I deliberately used the term "company community". 'community' is a term that crops up frequently, when discussing free software. it is characteristic of these communities that they exist to enable, and thrive upon, open acts of sharing. as for this privy group of companies, their resemblance to such communities appears tenuous at best. in another branch of the present thread, concrete mention was made of extended (paid) security support, as a possible topic of discussion. sounds like a good topic, but hardly one whose fruitful discussion requires a closed mailing list. I beg to disagree. It may very well need it. like in a particular case of the scenario you sketched above, i guess? okay, interesting. regarding such special needs, i can think of a few projects that could use hosting that provides a degree of confidentiality not provided by the google-way. do you suppose that google could make an exception for them? maybe forgo a little data-mining, deny access to three-letter agencies, etc? probably not, eh? does it puzzle you more, to encounter some resistance to secrecy here? why? the list, under the proposed restrictions, is closed not to competitors, but to *users* and many (or most?) project members. i am puzzled how this is supposed to nonetheless benefit users, or the debian project. And I'm puzzled why this initiative gets shot at so much before it even has a chance to get of the ground. puzzles all around, then! perhaps the closed nature of the list has something to do with it? perhaps the prospective hosting community, which makes no secret of the high value it places on the open sharing of solutions, would like to know what is in it for the
Re: Debian companies group
On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 11:14:11AM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote: > On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 08:39:00PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > > On 03/09/13 19:14, Michael Meskes wrote: > > > Right and we already have a debian-consultants mailing list, don't we? > > Yes, and that list is also struggling, so why fork it? > Because the list may be struggling because its definition is too wide open. Do you think this because you've surveyed companies that you think would like to participate in such a list and this is feedback they've given you, or is it merely speculation? From where I sit, the whole thing looks like a solution in search of a problem. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian companies group
Quoting Michael Meskes (2013-09-05 11:45:49) > On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 03:31:05PM -0400, david...@ling.ohio-state.edu > wrote: > > tldnr: what sorts of transactions are supposed to take place on the > > closed debian-companies list? how will their secret-from-users > > nature empower users? how will their secret-from-project-members > > empower the debian project? > > At the risk of repating myself over and over again. The secret status > has only one reason. There are companies out there with very > restictive rules about public communication. I am hoping we could get > some of those to join by keeping the list closed. I mentioned several > times that my wish would be that a group is formed that then decides > whether or not it wants to discuss in the open. Perhaps it would help defining who the secrecy protects _against_. A rule of "10 DDs" would include Google - the company most often used as example of complete leakage of secret information. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature
Re: Debian companies group
Hi! * Michael Meskes [130902 16:23]: > as you may or may not know there has been talk about starting a communiy of > companies around Debian. I'd like to get things moving now and I believe the > DPL agrees. I think it is a wonderfull idea and whish you good luck forming that group. If it succeeds it could be a very good addition to the broader Debian Community and could proof to be very helpful to the project. At least I can think of various occasions in the past, when it would have been usefull to have an easy contact point for Debian related companies. Again: Good luck, I wish you all the best. Best regards, Alexander -- 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/20130905100556.gi22...@iara.alphamar.org
Re: Debian companies group
On 05/09/13 10:22, Michael Meskes wrote: > On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 08:48:59PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: >> Most importantly, what is the aim of picking a random size limit? > > The size limit is not exactly random, but it may be too high or too low. Great, but what is the aim of that limit? To encourage debian companies to take on DDs on evil zero-hour contracts? [...] >> At the moment, the debian-companies list feels like a solution to no >> problem yet occurring and that's partly why it has only 4 members. > > Given that debian-consultants doesn't have much traffic at all, I can see > other > reason, too. Which are? I suggest one reason may be a lack of interest by the project and that consultants have moved to discussing debian in other places than the project lists, such as social media. There could probably be uses for -consultants if project leaders showed a fraction of the interest they have in -companies. -consultants has 400 members, which seems a much better starting point for development than a list of 4 members. It feels a bit like the project is lusting after companies who aren't interested in that way, rather than treating the lovers it knows well. Regards, -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer. In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Available for hire (including development) at http://www.software.coop/ -- 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/52285381.6010...@phonecoop.coop
Re: Debian companies group
On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 03:31:05PM -0400, david...@ling.ohio-state.edu wrote: > tldnr: what sorts of transactions are supposed to take place on the > closed debian-companies list? how will their secret-from-users nature > empower users? how will their secret-from-project-members empower the > debian project? At the risk of repating myself over and over again. The secret status has only one reason. There are companies out there with very restictive rules about public communication. I am hoping we could get some of those to join by keeping the list closed. I mentioned several times that my wish would be that a group is formed that then decides whether or not it wants to discuss in the open. > but in fact if it was, how is it in the interest of users, for the > debian project to collude in the concealment of companies' > relationships from users? I beg your pardon, but I find it difficult to digest what you're saying. > and am i to understand that companies *would* nonetheless discuss such > things on a mailing list open to an entire class of competitors? Depending on what it is yes. Of course no company would discuss its own strategy with competitors, but there are things that might benefit all but only be reachable by joining forces. Just as an example, assume there was a hardware vendor willing to put Debian on its boxes but requiring local expertise for helping their customers before doing so. Now one company may have the relationship in place, but at the same time may not be able to deliver what's needed. Why shouldn't they ask for help from competitors, because after all it'll help their own business as well. > could you elaborate on this, to help me understand? > > (2) Michael Meskes posted in the bugthread: > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=650082#85 > >Just imagine a company learning about a big potential migration > >towards Debian in an enterprise environment and wanting to discuss > >with others how they can help to get the deal. Do you think anyone > >would do this in public? > > would it be wise to hold such a discussion on a mailing list open, > again, to an entire class of competitors? Again depends, most companies cannot do all that's needed in such a large scale project. So wh not asking for help? > (3) Michael Meskes posted, in the bugthread: > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=650082#85 > >I don't think we're talking about creating a company-backed > >distribution or some sort of that. We're trying to tackle the > >problem that Debian is not well enough accepted by enterprise users > >to be deployed in their data centers. The list is not about the > >companies changing stuff in Debian, it's more about somehow forming > >a business community around Debian. > > if a company's resistance to deploying debian is misguided, why not > crowd-source the arguments, on an open list? This is already possible, but my gut feeling is that it didn't bring us where we should be. We as in Debian. > you know, the way a *community* does? This is why I deliberately used the term "company community". > in another branch of the present thread, concrete mention was made of > extended (paid) security support, as a possible topic of discussion. > sounds like a good topic, but hardly one whose fruitful discussion > requires a closed mailing list. I beg to disagree. It may very well need it. > the list, under the proposed restrictions, is closed not to > competitors, but to *users* and many (or most?) project members. i am > puzzled how this is supposed to nonetheless benefit users, or the > debian project. And I'm puzzled why this initiative gets shot at so much before it even has a chance to get of the ground. Hardly the only thing that's non-public with Debian. > >Who? > >A companies community should only contain companies. > > what kind of community contains only companies? such a thing does not > warrant the term 'community'. i worked for too long in a marketing > department to swallow this metaphor. I don't understand that at all. Companies work together on a daily base, why shouldn't they here? Or is it just the wording? Michael -- Michael Meskes Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org) Michael at BorussiaFan dot De, Meskes at (Debian|Postgresql) dot Org Jabber: michael.meskes at gmail dot com VfL Borussia! Força Barça! Go SF 49ers! Use Debian GNU/Linux, PostgreSQL -- 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/20130905094549.gc12...@feivel.credativ.lan
Re: Debian companies group
On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 08:48:59PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > Most importantly, what is the aim of picking a random size limit? The size limit is not exactly random, but it may be too high or too low. > And where else defines "company" as "one DD and at least 10 people on > staff"? I think being a company is about other things, not who and how > many workers you have on contract - how would you cope with companies > which meet your artificial number by using zero-hours contracts? The original idea was to ask for 2 DDs or DMs. The number 10 is a try yes, and I already admitted elsewhere that it may be too high. BTW just for the record it wasn't me who came up with the number. > I think sometimes "company" can be defined as a legal person: that is, a > corporation or group which acts similar to a corporation in key ways. > That seems a better starting point than numbers of staff, unless there's > some other reason behind it. There is a huge difference between very small and larger companies. > Should we look at a list where many of the members are representing, > controlling and/or acting for companies? Like someone said: the > debian-consultants list exists, doesn't it? ;-) So maybe experiment > there and what works for those companies may suggest similar tactics > that could work for these companies. I've seen lists (outside Debian) that didn't work just because they had too many different types of business entities (if you refer this wording) and these essantially couldn't find a common level to talk. This may or may not be happenening on consultants, too. > At the moment, the debian-companies list feels like a solution to no > problem yet occurring and that's partly why it has only 4 members. Given that debian-consultants doesn't have much traffic at all, I can see other reason, too. Michael -- Michael Meskes Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org) Michael at BorussiaFan dot De, Meskes at (Debian|Postgresql) dot Org Jabber: michael.meskes at gmail dot com VfL Borussia! Força Barça! Go SF 49ers! Use Debian GNU/Linux, PostgreSQL -- 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/20130905092256.gb12...@feivel.credativ.lan
Re: Debian companies group
On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 08:39:00PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > On 03/09/13 19:14, Michael Meskes wrote: > > Right and we already have a debian-consultants mailing list, don't we? > > Yes, and that list is also struggling, so why fork it? Because the list may be struggling because its definition is too wide open. Michael -- Michael Meskes Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org) Michael at BorussiaFan dot De, Meskes at (Debian|Postgresql) dot Org Jabber: michael.meskes at gmail dot com VfL Borussia! Força Barça! Go SF 49ers! Use Debian GNU/Linux, PostgreSQL -- 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/20130905091411.ga12...@feivel.credativ.lan
Re: Debian companies group
On 04/09/13 16:14, Michael Meskes wrote: >> You do not found a peer group by inventing random rules meant to exclude > Please get the facts straight. A group of companies can only be build by > companies, not by random people. And somehow the entity "company" has to be > defined. Most importantly, what is the aim of picking a random size limit? And where else defines "company" as "one DD and at least 10 people on staff"? I think being a company is about other things, not who and how many workers you have on contract - how would you cope with companies which meet your artificial number by using zero-hours contracts? I think sometimes "company" can be defined as a legal person: that is, a corporation or group which acts similar to a corporation in key ways. That seems a better starting point than numbers of staff, unless there's some other reason behind it. >> > people. Even less so in a Debian eco-system which is built on the spirit >> > of transparency and the ability of welcoming everyone. > Maybe, but then there is no company peer group so far, so we lack the > experience to say how it works best. Should we look at a list where many of the members are representing, controlling and/or acting for companies? Like someone said: the debian-consultants list exists, doesn't it? ;-) So maybe experiment there and what works for those companies may suggest similar tactics that could work for these companies. At the moment, the debian-companies list feels like a solution to no problem yet occurring and that's partly why it has only 4 members. Regards, -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer. In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Available for hire (including development) at http://www.software.coop/ -- 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/52278eab.2030...@phonecoop.coop
Re: Debian companies group
hi michael. tldnr: what sorts of transactions are supposed to take place on the closed debian-companies list? how will their secret-from-users nature empower users? how will their secret-from-project-members empower the debian project? On Mon, 2 Sep 2013, Michael Meskes wrote: Hi, as you may or may not know there has been talk about starting a communiy of companies around Debian. I'd like to get things moving now and I believe the DPL agrees. i find your use of the term 'community' here curious. i accept that companies depend on a certain kind of environment, and that such an environment is sufficiently similar to an ecosystem to justify the use of some biological metaphors. but biology is not society, and i balk at the idea of a *community* that consists solely of companies. it smells like marketing, designed to humanise is not human, with a social metaphor. i believe it is an dangerous exercise in self-delusion to imagine that a group of companies, alone, constitutes a community. Let me start by answering a few questions: Why? Companies (may) have different needs and different ideas about what they want from Debian than other groups that have already been formed. with the caveat that the 'ideas' and 'needs' of companies are in many import3Bant ways not comparable to the kind that you and i have, i accept this. but it is my understanding that debian is committed to serving the interests of *users*. in particular, and exclusively, human users. google, though it may well deploy debian somewhere (i would not know), cannot be a user. this is my understanding. i expect i am not alone in this understanding. (but perhaps i am not unopposed in it?) there might be benefits to be obtained, for the debian project and its users, by enabling companies to achieve certain goals. but let us not be confused by humanising tweaks to the rhetoric. companies are not people, are not users, and the debian manifesto is not about their needs. debian serves companies, if it does, *because* it serves users. i understand that this, and not the other way around, is its founding imperative. Should we later find out that this assumption was wrong, the group can simply be merged with other groups. How? There is a mailing list that I'd like to use for first discussions. These discussions should also help defining the role of this group. well, this part certainly sounds open... The mailing list right now is not public, ...and this is decidedly not. curiously. i have reviewed the bug report here... http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=650082 ...and i have followed the present thread with interest. what i have looked for, and not found, is a characterisation of what sorts of transactions are supposed will occur on the list. here are three points in the bugthread where i expected, but did not find, satisfaction: [begin bugthread excerpts] (1) Michael Meskes posted in the bugthread: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=650082#70 I think there are very good reasons to start with a closed list to at least get a discussion going as to where this group is going to evolve to. I honestly doubt any company will be willing to talk strategy or existing relationships on a public list. is this the kind of thing the list would be used for? perhaps that is not what you meant to imply? but in fact if it was, how is it in the interest of users, for the debian project to collude in the concealment of companies' relationships from users? and am i to understand that companies *would* nonetheless discuss such things on a mailing list open to an entire class of competitors? could you elaborate on this, to help me understand? (2) Michael Meskes posted in the bugthread: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=650082#85 Just imagine a company learning about a big potential migration towards Debian in an enterprise environment and wanting to discuss with others how they can help to get the deal. Do you think anyone would do this in public? would it be wise to hold such a discussion on a mailing list open, again, to an entire class of competitors? i find this difficult to believe. (3) Michael Meskes posted, in the bugthread: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=650082#85 I don't think we're talking about creating a company-backed distribution or some sort of that. We're trying to tackle the problem that Debian is not well enough accepted by enterprise users to be deployed in their data centers. The list is not about the companies changing stuff in Debian, it's more about somehow forming a business community around Debian. if a company's resistance to deploying debian is misguided, why not crowd-source the arguments, on an open list? you know, the way a *community* does? [end bugthread excerpts] without such explanation, i find it impossible to understand why the mailing list archives should be closed to non-subscribers, or why its membership should be restric
Re: Debian companies group
On 03/09/13 19:14, Michael Meskes wrote: > Right and we already have a debian-consultants mailing list, don't we? Yes, and that list is also struggling, so why fork it? Regards, -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer. In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Available for hire (including development) at http://www.software.coop/ -- 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/52278c54.3030...@phonecoop.coop
Re: Debian companies group
> You do not found a peer group by inventing random rules meant to exclude Please get the facts straight. A group of companies can only be build by companies, not by random people. And somehow the entity "company" has to be defined. > people. Even less so in a Debian eco-system which is built on the spirit > of transparency and the ability of welcoming everyone. Maybe, but then there is no company peer group so far, so we lack the experience to say how it works best. > Therefore, as a private comment: While meeting your artificial Nothing artificial here. > requirements, I am not interested to join such a list. Fine with me. Michael -- Michael Meskes Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org) Michael at BorussiaFan dot De, Meskes at (Debian|Postgresql) dot Org Jabber: michael.meskes at gmail dot com VfL Borussia! Força Barça! Go SF 49ers! Use Debian GNU/Linux, PostgreSQL -- 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/20130904151418.gb28...@feivel.credativ.lan
Re: Debian companies group
Hi, On 04.09.2013 15:38, Michael Meskes wrote: > There is no definitive answer for this. Let's try collecting a group first, > before getting into those details. You do not found a peer group by inventing random rules meant to exclude people. Even less so in a Debian eco-system which is built on the spirit of transparency and the ability of welcoming everyone. Therefore, as a private comment: While meeting your artificial requirements, I am not interested to join such a list. -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Debian companies group
> I'm not sure if this is a perfect fit though. We do have many DDs that > freelance (including work with and on Debian) and they would not > qualify. Other companies might have several DDs but only <10 persons of I'm not bound to the number of 10, 5 may be enough. > staff. What if the DD is only working part time? What if a company has > to lay of staff - will they be removed from the list if they drop beyond > 10? No, at least no immediately. :) There is no definitive answer for this. Let's try collecting a group first, before getting into those details. Michael -- Michael Meskes Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org) Michael at BorussiaFan dot De, Meskes at (Debian|Postgresql) dot Org Jabber: michael.meskes at gmail dot com VfL Borussia! Força Barça! Go SF 49ers! Use Debian GNU/Linux, PostgreSQL -- 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/20130904133807.ga19...@feivel.credativ.lan
Re: Debian companies group
Hi Michael, On Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 04:23:31PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote: > Hi, > > as you may or may not know there has been talk about starting a communiy of > companies around Debian. I'd like to get things moving now and I believe the > DPL agrees. > > Let me start by answering a few questions: > > Why? > Companies (may) have different needs and different ideas about what they want > from Debian than other groups that have already been formed. Should we later > find out that this assumption was wrong, the group can simply be merged with > other groups. I do think that's great. Topics like e.g. longer (paid) security support by companies are on the table since quiet some time and this would be a great place to discuss this and move things forward. [..snip..] > Who? > A companies community should only contain companies. We've been struggling for > a while to come up with a reasonable definition of a company. It definitely > has > to be related to Debian, so my first idea was to ask for two DDs or one DD and > one DM. But as Zac pointed out that might be too narrow a scope. He instead > suggested to ask for one DD and at least 10 people on staff which I think is a > good and reasonable number. Yes, I know, > http://lists.debian.org/debian-companies/ needs to be adjusted accordingly. I'm not sure if this is a perfect fit though. We do have many DDs that freelance (including work with and on Debian) and they would not qualify. Other companies might have several DDs but only <10 persons of staff. What if the DD is only working part time? What if a company has to lay of staff - will they be removed from the list if they drop beyond 10? So in contrast to caring so much about the exact status of a person or company wouldn't it be much more interesting to hear about the motivations of the person joining the list beforehand. This would also help with defining the scope of the list. Cheers, -- Guido > Scope? > I think the scope of this group should be defined by the group itself and thus > would like to encourage all companies to subscribe to said mailing list. > > Of course I'm also available for questions and comments. -- 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/20130904130923.ga5...@bogon.sigxcpu.org
Aw: Re: Debian companies group
> > On Dienstag, 3. September 2013, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > > But I don't understand why > > > interested DD aren't allowed to subscribe to it. I also don't understand > > > what the minimum size requirement brings. > > > > me neither. why are small debian companies no debian companies (in this > > context)? Why shouldn't they? We had one person companies sponsoring > > DebConfs > > several times. > > Right and we already have a debian-consultants mailing list, don't we? The > idea > was that bigger companies may have other topics and ideas. But then maybe not, > but it's worth a try imo. The numbers are not set in stone btw, but I strongly > believe in the beginning we should not start with everyone, but a group that > is not > really represented so far. I prefer you trying the way you want to try it rather than talking it down. How open you want to be to smaller groups you may want to discuss on the list, then. Go for it. Steffen -- 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/trinity-51fda7c8-3f9b-4611-97a8-7719749a7044-1378233115371@3capp-gmx-bs45
Re: Debian companies group
On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 12:18:05PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > The graphs on lists.debian.org seem to indicate that the list has not > seen much use: Indeed it hasn't. IMO due to the lack of an active group coordinator, whom we now seem to have. Regarding the privateness of the list, sure, the list can be moved elsewhere if *hosting* a private list on Debian infrastructure is not considered acceptable. I've argued at http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=650082#133 that mere hosting of this list doesn't, IMO, go against any Debian principle. My intuition for that is that the list is just a facility offered to an interest group, mostly formed by non-Debian actors, whose Debian-related actions to become effective will need to go through the usual Debian public channels (the BTS, VCS, packaging team lists, etc). If, in addition to that, companies would like to use the list also to discuss stuff that is private to them, e.g. commercial strategies or fleshing out announcements before they're public, that's fine by me, as I don't consider those Debian activities. If anyone think the project will gain something in moving such a list outside the Debian infra, sure, why not. FWIW, I've myself much more of an issue with private lists (and mail aliases) used by official Debian bodies, core teams, etc. Because those lists are used by project members to take decisions that impact directly on the project and won't necessarily go through other public channels before becoming effective. Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli . . . . . . . z...@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o Former Debian Project Leader . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o . « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club » signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian companies group
On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 08:14:10PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote: > > On Dienstag, 3. September 2013, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > > But I don't understand why > > > interested DD aren't allowed to subscribe to it. I also don't understand > > > what the minimum size requirement brings. > > me neither. why are small debian companies no debian companies (in this > > context)? Why shouldn't they? We had one person companies sponsoring > > DebConfs several times. > Right and we already have a debian-consultants mailing list, don't we? The > idea was that bigger companies may have other topics and ideas. But then > maybe not, but it's worth a try imo. The numbers are not set in stone > btw, but I strongly believe in the beginning we should not start with > everyone, but a group that is not really represented so far. I was unaware that this list existed. It seems that it was created over a year ago at Zack's request: http://bugs.debian.org/650082 I don't understand the value of such a list at all, or why, if it's a closed list, it should be run on Debian infrastructure. What do Debian-using companies need to discuss that they can't already discuss on the existing public mailing lists? Why should Debian host such private discussions? It's not in the spirit of the Debian project to encourage such private forums. Companies who are not willing to have their discussions out in the open should take those discussions elsewhere, not have them hosted privately on a Debian server. Companies, or their representatives, are as welcome as anyone else to participate in the discussions which shape Debian. But what's set up here seems to encourage companies to direct their energies towards a forum that is not integrated into the mainstream of Debian, disenfranchising them instead of empowering them. Before worrying about changing the mailing list subscription rules, I think it would be more important for the project to evaluate the results of the first year's "experiment". Has the list been used at all? What has it been used for? Have companies been effective in achieving their goals using this list? The graphs on lists.debian.org seem to indicate that the list has not seen much use: http://lists.debian.org/stats/debian-companies.png I don't see how the proposed changes to list subscription policy will help with that. Cheers, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian companies group
> On Dienstag, 3. September 2013, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > But I don't understand why > > interested DD aren't allowed to subscribe to it. I also don't understand > > what the minimum size requirement brings. > > me neither. why are small debian companies no debian companies (in this > context)? Why shouldn't they? We had one person companies sponsoring DebConfs > several times. Right and we already have a debian-consultants mailing list, don't we? The idea was that bigger companies may have other topics and ideas. But then maybe not, but it's worth a try imo. The numbers are not set in stone btw, but I strongly believe in the beginning we should not start with everyone, but a group that is not really represented so far. Michael -- Michael Meskes Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org) Michael at BorussiaFan dot De, Meskes at (Debian|Postgresql) dot Org Jabber: michael.meskes at gmail dot com VfL Borussia! Força Barça! Go SF 49ers! Use Debian GNU/Linux, PostgreSQL -- 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/20130903181410.ga6...@feivel.credativ.lan
Re: Debian companies group
Hi, On Dienstag, 3. September 2013, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > But I don't understand why > interested DD aren't allowed to subscribe to it. I also don't understand > what the minimum size requirement brings. me neither. why are small debian companies no debian companies (in this context)? Why shouldn't they? We had one person companies sponsoring DebConfs several times. cheers, Holger signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Debian companies group
On Tue, 03 Sep 2013, Michael Meskes wrote: > On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 11:12:12AM +0200, Paul Wise wrote: > > I didn't really understand your proposal, it was missing the "What?" > > section. What do you intend to change apart from the description of > > the debian-companies list? > > It is not just the description but the subscription policy that is changed. > But > my goal is to get some feedback about the idea in general as it hasn't got > much > traction so far. If there is no interest from companies we can simply close > the > list. But if there is we should start talking. I fear that a single post on debian-project is unlikely to reach the aforementionned companies. You should see with the Debian Press team if you can send out a news on debian-news@ and maybe relay the information in other places too (blogs, journalists, etc.). Or maybe you can ask the Debconf sponsorship team which probably has a few contacts with companies that would fit. That said I have never been a big fan of the restrictive policy on that list. I'm ok for it to not be public. But I don't understand why interested DD aren't allowed to subscribe to it. I also don't understand what the minimum size requirement brings. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer Discover the Debian Administrator's Handbook: → http://debian-handbook.info/get/ -- 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/20130903133219.gc30...@x230-buxy.home.ouaza.com
Aw: Re: Re: Debian companies group
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 03. September 2013 um 14:24 Uhr > Am 03.09.2013 12:04, schrieb Steffen Möller: > > >> It is not just the description but the subscription policy that is > >> changed. But > >> my goal is to get some feedback about the idea in general as it > >> hasn't got much > >> traction so far. If there is no interest from companies we can > >> simply close the > >> list. But if there is we should start talking. > > I support the idea. There are quite some different types of Debian > > companies around, and to learn about their concerns - early - may be > > of interest for > > our distribution. > > Yes, but Debian can not learn from it with the subscription policy as > is (and > intended to stay for now). Its an exclusive thing for some people, who > fit > "companies with a DD and at least 10 other people", so none else gets > anything from there. > Not the self-employed DDs, not those working in smaller companies. > > Sounds bad. Why do those smaller ones matter less? Ah. I missunderstood. Any volunteer interested in rendering our distribution more suitable for commercial entities should of course also have an option to join and/or read bits and pieces anonymously. Steffen -- 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/trinity-de1fefda-b05d-4d1a-86b0-959586d4d909-1378212667124@3capp-gmx-bs52
Re: Aw: Re: Debian companies group
Am 03.09.2013 12:04, schrieb Steffen Möller: It is not just the description but the subscription policy that is changed. But my goal is to get some feedback about the idea in general as it hasn't got much traction so far. If there is no interest from companies we can simply close the list. But if there is we should start talking. I support the idea. There are quite some different types of Debian companies around, and to learn about their concerns - early - may be of interest for our distribution. Yes, but Debian can not learn from it with the subscription policy as is (and intended to stay for now). Its an exclusive thing for some people, who fit "companies with a DD and at least 10 other people", so none else gets anything from there. Not the self-employed DDs, not those working in smaller companies. Sounds bad. Why do those smaller ones matter less? -- bye Joerg -- 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/674b540ba97f547989e34c9c138c9...@mail.ganneff.de
Aw: Re: Debian companies group
> Von: "Michael Meskes" > On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 11:12:12AM +0200, Paul Wise wrote: > > I didn't really understand your proposal, it was missing the "What?" > > section. What do you intend to change apart from the description of > > the debian-companies list? > > It is not just the description but the subscription policy that is changed. > But > my goal is to get some feedback about the idea in general as it hasn't got > much > traction so far. If there is no interest from companies we can simply close > the > list. But if there is we should start talking. I support the idea. There are quite some different types of Debian companies around, and to learn about their concerns - early - may be of interest for our distribution. Steffen -- 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/trinity-eba82059-3a65-4e77-a87f-d98e0b027d7f-1378202642647@3capp-gmx-bs52
Re: Debian companies group
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Michael Meskes wrote: > It is not just the description but the subscription policy that is changed. > But > my goal is to get some feedback about the idea in general as it hasn't got > much > traction so far. If there is no interest from companies we can simply close > the > list. But if there is we should start talking. In general there is lots of interest in Debian from companies, for example DebConf sponsorship and the Debian partners program. Personally I feel that companies are perfectly capable of expressing their interest in Debian through hiring Debian members, mailing debian-devel/debian-project, the Debian partners program and other existing fora. I'm not privy to the discussions on the debian-companies list so I may be missing information here. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- 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/caktje6hoxbhekr3-rdtcpywzblw0-7chg0mcp-3xhkhroer...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Debian companies group
On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 11:12:12AM +0200, Paul Wise wrote: > I didn't really understand your proposal, it was missing the "What?" > section. What do you intend to change apart from the description of > the debian-companies list? It is not just the description but the subscription policy that is changed. But my goal is to get some feedback about the idea in general as it hasn't got much traction so far. If there is no interest from companies we can simply close the list. But if there is we should start talking. Michael -- Michael Meskes Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org) Michael at BorussiaFan dot De, Meskes at (Debian|Postgresql) dot Org Jabber: michael.meskes at gmail dot com VfL Borussia! Força Barça! Go SF 49ers! Use Debian GNU/Linux, PostgreSQL -- 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/20130903094101.ga15...@feivel.credativ.lan
Re: Debian companies group
I didn't really understand your proposal, it was missing the "What?" section. What do you intend to change apart from the description of the debian-companies list? -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- 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/CAKTje6HQcjUBeBhXA5hqiGwAY0ReoN=b4gtndpvwasta_ve...@mail.gmail.com
Debian companies group
Hi, as you may or may not know there has been talk about starting a communiy of companies around Debian. I'd like to get things moving now and I believe the DPL agrees. Let me start by answering a few questions: Why? Companies (may) have different needs and different ideas about what they want from Debian than other groups that have already been formed. Should we later find out that this assumption was wrong, the group can simply be merged with other groups. How? There is a mailing list that I'd like to use for first discussions. These discussions should also help defining the role of this group. The mailing list right now is not public, but that can be changed if the group decides to. For the time being I like to keep it closed to help the initial discussion. Some of the ideas or memberships may not be ripe to go public yet. Who? A companies community should only contain companies. We've been struggling for a while to come up with a reasonable definition of a company. It definitely has to be related to Debian, so my first idea was to ask for two DDs or one DD and one DM. But as Zac pointed out that might be too narrow a scope. He instead suggested to ask for one DD and at least 10 people on staff which I think is a good and reasonable number. Yes, I know, http://lists.debian.org/debian-companies/ needs to be adjusted accordingly. Scope? I think the scope of this group should be defined by the group itself and thus would like to encourage all companies to subscribe to said mailing list. Of course I'm also available for questions and comments. Michael -- Michael Meskes Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org) Michael at BorussiaFan dot De, Meskes at (Debian|Postgresql) dot Org Jabber: michael.meskes at gmail dot com VfL Borussia! Força Barça! Go SF 49ers! Use Debian GNU/Linux, PostgreSQL -- 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/20130902142331.ga18...@feivel.credativ.lan
