Re: Q for Andreas Schuldei: "Small teams"??
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 04:34:28AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Andreas Schuldei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.03.08.1650 +0100]: > > More real live examples are debian-edu or debian-installer. The > > people are more real and the problems different, but the general > > mechanics apply. > > The point of the Debian system for me is not to be a collection of > software, but rather an integrated system. Who will integrate the > teams? The "small team" of project Scud? Did debian-edu, the release team or debian-installer need any integration? Still debian-edu uses up-to-date debian-installer technology and when finding bugs things work out just smoothly, without fights or funny faces when developers meet. In fact cooperation between the teams seems to be above average. > Also, how will you ensure that while the atmosphere inside a team > may be jolly, the teams don't flame each other and wait for Debconf > 5 to engage in a massive tag-team dirt fight? Not that this wouldn't > be fun... Let's be real: Why would anyone, just because he is happy in his team, start fighting with people on other teams out of the blue? I am on small teams both within Debian and in real life and it *just does not happen*. Fact is that people who get external affirmation (within their team) and feel appreciated are more balanced in their personality and less likely to attack anyone then people lacking that acceptation. The idea of sudden fights over turf between teams only starts to make sense if they compete for power, money, food or cpu-time. I don't see that danger. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
When should -legal contact maintainers [Was: Re: Question for candidate Robinson]
[This is wildly OT for -vote, MFT set to -legal and CC:'ed, please follow up there or privately.] On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 12:52:20AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > > > Still, debian-legal should inform the maintainers and invite them to take > > > part of the discussion when examining packages which have been in main for > > > years. > > I think he's right about this. For one thing, as he just explained, > he got upset precisely because he wasn't informed; it's reasonable > to assume that the way in which his discussion would have been > performed would have been 'slightly' different had he been informed > in time. I *do* think it is good practice for d-legal contributors > to inform a packages' maintainer if they are discussing its license; > we do the same with other types of bugs. If -legal is specifically discussing a license of a package, the maintainer is generally informed[1] when the discussion is actually happening. However, (almost) no one bothers to inform the maintainers when general discussion of a license is occuring, in the first part because most of the discussion isn't particularly useful to most maintainers, and secondly, because people have better things to do[1] than track down which packages are covered by a license when the critical issues (if any) haven't been discussed or discerned yet. In the latter stages of the discussion, if there really are issues with a license that packages in Debian are using, bugs are typically opened against the packages, ideally with a short summary of the specific issues that the license has, and suggestions for what the maintainer can do to fix the license. (And quite often offers of help in explaining the problems to upstream as well.) As far as the analogy to "normal" bugs goes, the preliminary discussion is generally on the order of "is this really a bug?" as is typically seen on -devel. [Or, in the extreme case, figuring out whether mass bug filing is sane.] Surely no maintainer expects to be notified every time someone asks on -user, -devel (or $DEITY forbid, IRC[3]) whether specific behavior from a package constitutes a bug. Don Armstrong 1: Or at least, when I'm starting the discussion, I usually inform them... most contributors that I've seen do the same. (#242281 FE) 2: But by all means, feel free to follow -legal and make such announcements to maintainers who are actually interested in them. 3: If they did, I'm sure I'd be on everyone's killfile by now, since I get asked these sorts of questions all the time. -- I'd never hurt another living thing. But if I did... It would be you. -- Chris Bishop http://www.chrisbishop.com/her/archives/her69.html http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question for candidate Robinson
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 10:40:50PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > No, the package was not non-free, and the argumentation which > > brought said guy to claim consensus had been reached was not sound, > > nor was there real consensus i believe. > > So someone posted a bug report that wasn't really a bug? Someone made me believe that debian-legal had reached consensus on this matter and that ocaml should be removed from main. The bug report was CCed to debian-legal, and my reply to debian-legal was unwilling, i didn't even notice before the tenth or so reply. Nobody in debian-legal corrected the misconception that consensus had been reached though, which means you all gave your tacit agreement to the reporters version. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question for candidate Robinson
On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 01:46:58PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 01:57:55AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > > In your platform this year, you mention a grounding in legal issues as one > > of the things that you have to offer the project as DPL. > > Over the past year, there has been a great deal of controversy (I dare > > say moreso than in preceding years) over the role of the debian-legal > > list in defining our concept of Free Software. > I agree with that assessment. There is either a perception that the -legal > mailing list has become a more "radical" place, or there are people > repeating this opinion after they hear it from others without bothering to > evaluate the traffic on -legal for themselves. > > How would you respond to critics that would claim your prominence in > > debian-legal marks you for an extremist, not a consensus-builder? > I'd say that's a pretty loaded question. :) > If mere "prominence" on debian-legal marks one as an extremist, then there > are many people who qualify as "extremists", including Sven Luther, who > posted, by my reckoning, 303 messages to -legal between January and > September of last year. > It's worth considering the question of whether prominence equals extremism. > To that end, I dashed off a quick Python script (attached) and fed it my > debian-legal folder, which in its present state contains all the mails I've > been sent from that list (I subscribe to it) since 1 January 2004. As I mentioned to you on IRC, I was indeed amused when I saw this list of top posters, because of how closely it correlates with my debian-legal reading habits of skimming messages from certain posters who contribute in volume far exceeding the original content of these messages. What's disappointing is how a single question about debian-legal has suddenly turned this thread into a veritable microcosm of that list, with repeats of disagreements that have been heard a hundred times before with no sign of anyone being persuaded by the arguments offered. I have personally found your posts to debian-legal to almost always be well-reasoned and moderate in tone. Unfortunately, mere reasonableness and moderation seem inadequate to quench the flames that plague the debian-legal list. > I don't think consensus-building is all that hard as long as common, > relevant goals can be agreed upon. Until and unless people can identify > such goals, however, it's my experience that "consensus-building" is code > language for "horse trading". Am I a good horse-trader? Am I, for > instance, willing to overlook the flaws in the Apple Public Source License > 2.0 so that we have the howl library in main[3]? No, I am not, and it > appears the consensus of my fellow developers is that we, as a project, > should not either. > Let me turn your question around a bit, then, and ask you: > * Do you feel the decision to move howl to non-free reflects the > consensus of Debian developers? I do, but it's a consensus with a large dissenting factor within the project; since I'd never talked to Jeff before about such things and had no idea what he as a maintainer felt about such questions, I was careful to emphasize the *lack* of consensus about the APSL 2.0 being free, rather than asserting that there was a consensus that it was non-free. Since Jeff apparently already felt the same way about this license, I really have no idea if this strategy is useful in practice. :) > * If so, how useful was the debian-legal mailing list to > determining that this consensus existed? Very useful; the summaries/discussion of the APSL on-list were invaluable to me in judging whether there was sufficient reason to question the freeness of the software. I just wish it were possible to do so without fear of an outbreak of argument-sketch-itis. Cheers, -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Q for Andreas Schuldei: "Small teams"??
also sprach Andreas Schuldei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.03.10.0917 +0100]: > Did debian-edu, the release team or debian-installer need any > integration? No, but try to integrate teams formed out on existing matter, not new projects. I subscribe to the concept of your idea, but I think it's not very practical, almost idealist in fact. > Let's be real: Why would anyone, just because he is happy in his > team, start fighting with people on other teams out of the blue? Uh, so the flamewars and hostile email we see from time to time would all stop as we up give individual existence and start existing as one of a team? -- Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list! .''`. martin f. krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : :' :proud Debian developer, admin, user, and author `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system Invalid/expired PGP subkeys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver! signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Question for A. Towns - NM
Hi, Ean Schuessler wrote:
> So then you are back to some kind of yardstick determining the freedoms of
> everyone. Who will set the mark?
>
Read the Ubuntu Code of Conduct, for example.
There will always be a gray area, but that's not a valid argument for
denying that black exists at all.
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 02:36:49AM +, MJ Ray wrote: > > If it's fair to call one-sided example genders on www.debian as > > a bug, let's call it a bug where it happens across all debian. > That's a fair call. So are you going to follow d-women's example, get > involved in the project you feel is a problem, and help to provide > corrective action? [...] Some of my suggestions have been accepted previously. Damned if I can find the right bug tracker entries for them, though. This is a lower priority than some other tasks (package review and upload, for example) and I feel progress is impeded by some irrational or uncommunicative people. For example, "Searching for Safety Online" (which recommends "pro-active interventions") has been used to justify the debate-killing silence policy in the List FAQ, which seems just plain broken. So, I have not contributed for some time. There are more welcoming and encouraging parts of the project which also need help. I call on the debian-women leaders to make it welcoming and rebalance tolerance, but here I'm really interested in what the DPL candidates would do about topics this raises, if anything. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Subscribed to this list. No need to Cc, thanks. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question for candidate Robinson
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Someone made me believe that debian-legal had reached consensus on this matter > and that ocaml should be removed from main. [...] If you're that gullible, will you buy my Eiffel Tower, please? Seriously, maybe you got the wrong impression from misreporting of debian-legal, which was reaching a peak around that time. > Nobody in debian-legal corrected the misconception that consensus had been > reached though, which means you all gave your tacit agreement to the reporters > version. Florian Weimer, Matthew Garrett and Steve McIntyre all dissented pretty quickly, as far as I can tell. At least the first two cc'd the bug tracker. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Subscribed to this list. No need to Cc, thanks. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question for candidate Robinson
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 08:38:23AM +0100, Romain Francoise wrote: > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Which is why most DDs are unthrusthy of debian-legal to know how best > > to handle this. > > You've been asked already, but can you produce evidence of that? Can you provide evidence of the contrary ? A big percentage of the developers i interact with and mentioned this to seemed to be of this opinion. What more do you want ? names ? > Maybe _you_ don't trust the debian-legal people, but please don't > include the rest of the project in your offensive assertions. debian-legal is not-to-be-thrusted as it has too many people there with too much time to waste on arguing for the sake of arguing, and with little regard to the actual realities, or to the rest of the work. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question for candidate Robinson
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 02:49:14AM +, MJ Ray wrote: > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > and the early reaction of debian-legal when i first joined this disastrous > > topic was not one to make debian-legal shine [...] > > Probably not. The first reaction of Sven Luther wasn't good either. > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg00363.html > > > Clearly many of the debian-legal people > > take their wish for realities, > > ..and clearly Sven has a mind-reading device. Go back to that discussion, read the full many 100 thread there, and you will see that the discussion which was throwed at me didn't even bother to : 1) examine the package in question to see what parts where affected. 2) read the DFSG and base the analysis of the supposed licence problem on it, and not pre-decided tests which arebiased in some direction. 3) read the actual QPL and the consequences of it. 4) suggest something constructive based on the above, but just claimed : ocaml is under the QPL. Qt was under the QPL, trolltech dual licenced Qt with the GPL, thus ocaml should do the same, blah blah blah chinese dissident, desert island, blah blah blah. give me any reason to not plainly dismiss this kind of bullshit coming from the supposedly serious debian-legal folk ? And notice that i later, after the first anger passed, start a constructive thread that lead to the satisfactory solution of this imagined problem. Matthew Palmer in particular, for all crying out loud at abuse and using ad-hominen methods as those in the mail he cited, demostrated that he was not reading any counter-argument, but just came back forever which is pre-dessided conclusion, namely that upstream should dual-licence under the GPL. If debian-legal is to be thrusted, they must be prepared to have an argumentation whichis able to convince the maintainer, and not try to force half-backed assertion down his throat, and thus have him look ridiculous in his dealing with his upstream. I don't know if you have legal background, but someof the debian-legal folk have, and the kind of conclusion reached there would not stand before a judge, and you perfectly know that, and what good is the debian-legal advice then ? That said, once i got the discussion on track again, and Matthew out of the way, we could have a serious discussion, and solve the problem, don't you agree with that ? Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: dak and the debian infrastructure
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 03:34:19PM +0900, Sanghyeon Seo wrote: > On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 20:24:41 -0800, Rich Rudnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > dak is now in main. Why did it's publication take so long? > > Because dak is difficult to package. Read README.Debian file of dak. The first > word there is "insanity". > > > What other infrastructure is hidden from debian users (other than > > -private), and what should be continued to be hidden? > > I don't think any thing is actually "hidden". If you mean "not packaged", > autobuilder comes to mind, but a part of autobuilder (namely sbuild) is > already in the archive. or debian-cd, where only one person can usually use it with one precise infrastructure in mind to build the debian isos. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform
* MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005:03:10 10:33 +]: > Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 02:36:49AM +, MJ Ray wrote: > > > If it's fair to call one-sided example genders on www.debian as > > > a bug, let's call it a bug where it happens across all debian. > > That's a fair call. So are you going to follow d-women's example, get > > involved in the project you feel is a problem, and help to provide > > corrective action? [...] > > Some of my suggestions have been accepted previously. Damned > if I can find the right bug tracker entries for them, though. Yeah, a bug tracker might be nice, but it seems a bit overboard for what we do. The community is small enough that we can fairly easily track stuff already. And yes, you did suggest some helpful things before. :) > This is a lower priority than some other tasks (package review > and upload, for example) and I feel progress is impeded by some > irrational or uncommunicative people. For example, "Searching > for Safety Online" (which recommends "pro-active interventions") > has been used to justify the debate-killing silence policy in > the List FAQ, which seems just plain broken. IIRC, you recommended having someone designated as a sort of "troll detector" or similar who would decide that $PERSON wasn't worth responding too and announce it to the list. Luckily we haven't had to resort to any similar measures since last year. I don't consider ignoring people who seem to be out to shut down what we're working on "broken" though. You may be enlightened by what you call "debates", but many people (including myself) consider them draining, pointless arguments, which may explain some of our silence in this thread as well. > So, I have not contributed for some time. There are more > welcoming and encouraging parts of the project which also need > help. I call on the debian-women leaders to make it welcoming > and rebalance tolerance, but here I'm really interested in what > the DPL candidates would do about topics this raises, if anything. Well, that is fine, but there are also some things you are unaware of as a result of your lack of time / interest. One of these things is that the project has evolved since last year -- in August it was only two months old and didn't take kindly to basically having two attacks on it within a short period of time. It took a bit of effort to remotivate ourselves to get it working. Now it's a fairly vibrant and positive community and, to address some of your more specific concerns, there are a fair amount of men also working on the project. They have full access and total freedom to do as they please to the website and so forth and I do not think that, due to their contributions, any of us would be opposed to having them on the website. However, the topic has not come up and I think it's silly to forcefully encourage them to list themselves -- we don't even do that with the women on the profiles page. They approach us and if we think they've contributed enough to Debian and are active members of Debian Women, they are put there. How we function is pretty basic: negativity is uncalled for and we don't respond well to it, if at all. As time goes on we evolve to meet certain desires or needs as they arise. Requesting -- nay, demanding -- we evolve to meet your needs when you have not shown any vested interest in the group in any way, nor do you wish to contribute anything positive, is sure to be met with silence at best, hostility at worst. (I discourage the latter and I think we've improved in that area as well.) -- off the chain like a rebellious guanine nucleotide signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: dak and the debian infrastructure
Sven Luther wrote: >On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 03:34:19PM +0900, Sanghyeon Seo wrote: >> >> I don't think any thing is actually "hidden". If you mean "not packaged", >> autobuilder comes to mind, but a part of autobuilder (namely sbuild) is >> already in the archive. > >or debian-cd, where only one person can usually use it with one precise >infrastructure in mind to build the debian isos. Pardon? -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.[EMAIL PROTECTED] "I suspect most samba developers are already technically insane... Of course, since many of them are Australians, you can't tell." -- Linus Torvalds -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Q for Andreas Schuldei: "Small teams"??
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 11:12:50AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote: > > Let's be real: Why would anyone, just because he is happy in his > > team, start fighting with people on other teams out of the blue? To make my question more precise: "Why would anyone, just because he is happy in his team, start fighting with people on other teams out of the blue if he didnt do so before?" > Uh, so the flamewars and hostile email we see from time to time > would all stop as we up give individual existence and start existing > as one of a team? ok, test your theory and point out individuals engaging in flamewars who are part of debian-edu, debian-installer or the release team, preferably on a regular basis. I know it is really hard to drop the habit of making points in discussions by not polarizing the debate. but that is just not valid in social contexts, since the spectrum of motivations in people and groups is so much greater then in computers. To answer your question: If we implent small groups and manage to grow regarding loving relationships, there still will be flames but less. I can garantee that we will remain individuals, even as team members. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: dak and the debian infrastructure
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 11:46:45AM +, Steve McIntyre wrote: > Sven Luther wrote: > >On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 03:34:19PM +0900, Sanghyeon Seo wrote: > >> > >> I don't think any thing is actually "hidden". If you mean "not packaged", > >> autobuilder comes to mind, but a part of autobuilder (namely sbuild) is > >> already in the archive. > > > >or debian-cd, where only one person can usually use it with one precise > >infrastructure in mind to build the debian isos. > > Pardon? I know nobody excpt manty which is able to reproduce the builds of the weekly/daily debian-cd thingies, and the debian-cd used to build them is highly dependent on the archive organisation of the box on which it runs. Friendly; Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Q for Andreas Schuldei: "Small teams"??
also sprach Andreas Schuldei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.03.10.1318 +0100]: > ok, test your theory and point out individuals engaging in > flamewars who are part of debian-edu, debian-installer or the > release team, preferably on a regular basis. I am not denying that the three teams you mention are very productive and share a very friendly environment. All I am saying is that this won't automatically be portable to the rest of Debian per your "let's make everyone want to skinny dip in small groups" approach. I think it's a good idea nonetheless, addresses the problem of Debian being a "bazaar of cathedrals," and generally formalises a trend that has been noticeable over the past years (encouraging co-maintenance, alioth, ...). I think you should probably provide a little more detail on how you plan to make it possible. In particular, how do you intend to deal with those maintainers who are not interested in working with anyone? -- Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list! .''`. martin f. krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : :' :proud Debian developer, admin, user, and author `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system Invalid/expired PGP subkeys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver! signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: dak and the debian infrastructure
[ Note Reply-To: set, we're wandering off-topic here ] On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 01:45:08PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: >On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 11:46:45AM +, Steve McIntyre wrote: >> Sven Luther wrote: >> >On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 03:34:19PM +0900, Sanghyeon Seo wrote: >> >> >> >> I don't think any thing is actually "hidden". If you mean "not packaged", >> >> autobuilder comes to mind, but a part of autobuilder (namely sbuild) is >> >> already in the archive. >> > >> >or debian-cd, where only one person can usually use it with one precise >> >infrastructure in mind to build the debian isos. >> >> Pardon? > >I know nobody excpt manty which is able to reproduce the builds of the >weekly/daily debian-cd thingies, and the debian-cd used to build them is >highly dependent on the archive organisation of the box on which it runs. Well, I'm producing sarge CDs on a weekly basis too, just not public ones at the moment. I've also made several sets of woodyrX CDs recently. Debian-cd may be a minority package, as it has a very large dependency (a mirror), but there are quite a few people using it successfully. It's not easy to use (and quite probably never will be) as it's a very specialised piece of software. There are substantial changes waiting for after the sarge release, not least the huge performance increase from my own JTE code. Please feel free to join in discussion on the debian-cd list if you have suggestions for other changes. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.[EMAIL PROTECTED] Can't keep my eyes from the circling sky, Tongue-tied & twisted, Just an earth-bound misfit, I... signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: dak and the debian infrastructure
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 01:45:08PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 11:46:45AM +, Steve McIntyre wrote: > > Sven Luther wrote: > > >On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 03:34:19PM +0900, Sanghyeon Seo wrote: > > >> > > >> I don't think any thing is actually "hidden". If you mean "not packaged", > > >> autobuilder comes to mind, but a part of autobuilder (namely sbuild) is > > >> already in the archive. > > > > > >or debian-cd, where only one person can usually use it with one precise > > >infrastructure in mind to build the debian isos. > > > > Pardon? > > I know nobody excpt manty which is able to reproduce the builds of the > weekly/daily debian-cd thingies, and the debian-cd used to build them is > highly dependent on the archive organisation of the box on which it runs. $ ssh [EMAIL PROTECTED] $ cd /org/cdimage.debian.org/setup $ ls Is this really to difficult for you? Gaudenz P.S.: I never before looked at the debian-cd setup producing the sarge CDs and it took me less than 2 minutes to find out where to look. -- Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better. ~ Samuel Beckett ~ pgpIpJ9qcdPAK.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Question for candidate Robinson
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Go back to that discussion, read the full many 100 thread there, and you will > see that the discussion which was throwed at me didn't even bother to : [...] Now, most of what you were expecting was unstated and then you got upset by the difference between what you expected and what happened. Some of the participants clearly did some of the steps you state, but I can't say whether anyone did all, as I can't remember what I did. I suggest that not all of your expectations were obvious and you should have told us about them before getting out the flamethrower. I also believe that we must improve -legal docs (maybe after this I will make time, if not beaten). This is a public relations problem. Some people expect to come to debian-legal for a flamewar, as that's how it's reported, so it's almost a self-fulfilling prophecy at times, with d-l contributors expecting new contributors to come in flaming and it attracting new contributors from the flamable end of the scale. Eventually it cools down, as it's a pretty reflective topic unless you are zealous about it in one direction or another. > give me any reason to not plainly dismiss this kind of bullshit coming from > the supposedly serious debian-legal folk ? [...] Sometimes it's appropriate to dismiss a bug, but don't dismiss indiscriminately. See the "Bug housekeeping" advice at http://www.uk.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/ch-pkgs.en.html#s-bug-housekeeping and treat -legal-related bugs like any other. > If debian-legal is to be thrusted, they must be prepared to have an > argumentation whichis able to convince the maintainer, and not try to force > half-backed assertion down his throat, and thus have him look ridiculous in > his dealing with his upstream. You've used this metaphor "thrusted" a couple of times and I didn't understand what you meant by it. Now that you're linking it with "force ... down his throat", I must challenge: are you really likening debian-legal bug reporting to sexual violence? :-( > I don't know if you have legal background, but someof the debian-legal folk > have, and the kind of conclusion reached there would not stand before a judge, > and you perfectly know that, and what good is the debian-legal advice then ? If we all perfectly knew that, we wouldn't be having this conversation. debian-legal is not as good as a good lawyer, but it tends to be better than random and is a lot cheaper. > That said, once i got the discussion on track again, and Matthew out of the > way, we could have a serious discussion, and solve the problem, don't you > agree with that ? I don't remember whether this was solved and how. Was it? -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Subscribed to this list. No need to Cc, thanks. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform
Erinn Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005:03:10 10:33 +]:=20 > > Some of my suggestions have been accepted previously. Damned > > if I can find the right bug tracker entries for them, though. > Yeah, a bug tracker might be nice, but it seems a bit overboard [...] I was pretty sure I put at least one suggestion through a bug tracker. My memory is not brilliant. Others were almost all off-list because of the atmosphere, so can't be shown in public and that means some here wouldn't believe it. :-/ > > This is a lower priority than some other tasks (package review > > and upload, for example) and I feel progress is impeded by some > > irrational or uncommunicative people. For example, "Searching > > for Safety Online" (which recommends "pro-active interventions") > > has been used to justify the debate-killing silence policy in > > the List FAQ, which seems just plain broken. > IIRC, you recommended having someone designated as a sort of "troll > detector" or similar who would decide that $PERSON wasn't worth responding > too and announce it to the list. Luckily we haven't had to resort to any > similar measures since last year. [...] That's almost it, but there was also that the "detector" (I think I meant "troll advisor" but I'm not sure whether I used that name) should inform $PERSON off-list and advise them how they could get a voice within the debian-women culture. Probably a lot of the time that will be directing to FAQs or codes, but there's always something not covered there. Using a smaller number of people makes it easier to spot new conduct FAQs without overwhelming the list while people acculturate(?). I think you've not felt the need because debian-women hasn't been communicating with the rest of the project as much as when Amaya sent out that mailshot. Is this because debian-women learnt from the response? Do you feel the group learnt the best thing? > I don't consider ignoring people who seem to be out to shut down what we're > working on "broken" though. You may be enlightened by what you call > "debates", but many people (including myself) consider them draining, > pointless arguments, which may explain some of our silence in this thread > as well. There are points to them, in both directions, although sometimes the noise gets high here. Refusing to accept debate reinforces my impression of debian-women as irrationally stubborn. I find this quite amusing: my complaints to you seem similar to Sven's complaints to debian-legal. > Well, that is fine, but there are also some things you are unaware of as a > result of your lack of time / interest. Sure, so I thought it was idle. After a claim d-w is good at communications, I asked questions about the stuff I last heard happening and got flamed for that by Matthew Palmer in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. Maybe I shouldn't have put my other stuff in the same mail, but we can cut mails. > [...] I do not think that, due to their contributions, any of us would be > opposed to having them on the website. [...] Wow! That wasn't the impression I got last time I asked. If I submit a patch to http://women.alioth.debian.org/involvement/ that reflects that, will you accept it? (Actually, how do I make a patch for that?) > How we function is pretty basic: negativity is uncalled for and we don't > respond well to it, if at all. As time goes on we evolve to meet certain > desires or needs as they arise. Requesting -- nay, demanding -- we evolve to > meet your needs when you have not shown any vested interest in the group in > any way, nor do you wish to contribute anything positive, is sure to be met > with silence at best, hostility at worst. (I discourage the latter and I > think we've improved in that area as well.) I'm uninterested in the debian-women group and don't wish to contribute anything which you consider positive yet because I feel I basically disagree with you in the direction it's heading. Equally, because I'm uninterested in the particular group, I don't intend to harm it, but I will discourage acts which I am interested in and think harmful. I reiterate that the "silence" policy hinders you. I wish I could find the right campaign note here, but my workspace is a mess today. It suggests a short, polite, closed dismissal works better than trying to ignore their view, which fits with preserving "democratic possibility" or "political possibility" as a way to avoid conflict. Do you know that idea too? Silence beats getting the flamethrower out, but it's not best practice. A difficulty of words is that it's not as obvious whether excitement is from fight or progress, especially when we're not sharing a common culture. That isn't a good argument for monoculture, in my opinion, nor for silence. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Subscribed to this list. No need to Cc, thanks. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL P
Re: Project scud (for Andreas Schuldei and Branden Robinson)
On 09-Mar-05, 20:35 (CST), martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Why the need for a closed council, which will surely employ closed > means of communication among its members? Why not consult in public > so we all know how our project is actually being led? Perhaps becuase it's easier to hash out ideas in a small group for eventual discussion by Debian-at-large? The problem with the large Debian mailling lists is that there is always someone more interested in perceiving words in the most unfavorable form, rather than actually getting work done. Since the DPL can't actually do much of anything without much broader consensus, I don't see the real problem. (To be clear: I *don't* think Martin is one of those people, and this is not aimed at Martin.) The reality is that anyone running for DPL probably has an idea about who in Debian they respect, and who they'd go to for ideas and second opinions. All Project Scud has done is make that idea public. We, the voters, can look at that list and decide if we also respect those people or not. Steve -- Steve Greenland The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the world. -- seen on the net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform
* MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005:03:10 14:01 +]: > I was pretty sure I put at least one suggestion through a bug > tracker. My memory is not brilliant. Others were almost all > off-list because of the atmosphere, so can't be shown in public > and that means some here wouldn't believe it. :-/ There were suggestions you posted to the list. The bug you filed had to do with how the website was licensed so it may be on alioth's BTS somewhere. Well, I assume it was you -- it was filed anonymously. > That's almost it, but there was also that the "detector" (I think > I meant "troll advisor" but I'm not sure whether I used that > name) should inform $PERSON off-list and advise them how they > could get a voice within the debian-women culture. Probably > a lot of the time that will be directing to FAQs or codes, > but there's always something not covered there. Using a > smaller number of people makes it easier to spot new conduct > FAQs without overwhelming the list while people acculturate(?). Yes. IIRC, this was applied to you which you disliked -- many of us attempted to speak to you off-list and tell you why your on-list attempts at engaging us weren't working. Alas... > I think you've not felt the need because debian-women hasn't > been communicating with the rest of the project as much as when > Amaya sent out that mailshot. This is false. We regularly send updates to DWN (which we've already established you don't read, but that's not our fault). Many members of DW, specifically people in charge of it, are not DDs yet so we don't send emails to d-d-a (yet). > Is this because debian-women learnt from the response? Do you feel the > group learnt the best thing? I think all we learned was to ignore people we consider destructive to our goals. So yeah, I'm pretty sure that was the best thing. > > I don't consider ignoring people who seem to be out to shut down what we're > > working on "broken" though. You may be enlightened by what you call > > "debates", but many people (including myself) consider them draining, > > pointless arguments, which may explain some of our silence in this thread > > as well. > > There are points to them, in both directions, although sometimes > the noise gets high here. Refusing to accept debate reinforces > my impression of debian-women as irrationally stubborn. I find > this quite amusing: my complaints to you seem similar to Sven's > complaints to debian-legal. Something you may not be understanding is that we have had these debates about a thousand times. They are not interesting, new, or fun. They're boring and counter-productive. > > [...] I do not think that, due to their contributions, any of us would be > > opposed to having them on the website. [...] > > Wow! That wasn't the impression I got last time I asked. If I > submit a patch to http://women.alioth.debian.org/involvement/ > that reflects that, will you accept it? (Actually, how do I > make a patch for that?) The entire bio section needs to be rewritten; I'll work on it later. I'd look at a patch but I may or may not accept it, depending on how much I decide to change the text. > I'm uninterested in the debian-women group I agree. I find myself wishing you would pay more attention to us. > I reiterate that the "silence" policy hinders you. I wish I > could find the right campaign note here, but my workspace is > a mess today. It suggests a short, polite, closed dismissal > works better than trying to ignore their view, which fits with > preserving "democratic possibility" or "political possibility" > as a way to avoid conflict. Do you know that idea too? Sure. I will employee this tactic from now on. :) > Silence beats getting the flamethrower out, but it's not best > practice. Well, I've said my piece and don't plan to comment anymore. I've also set the M-f-T accordingly for those who wish to continue the discussion. -- off the chain like a rebellious guanine nucleotide signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Project scud (for Andreas Schuldei and Branden Robinson)
also sprach Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.03.10.1533 +0100]: > Perhaps becuase it's easier to hash out ideas in a small group for > eventual discussion by Debian-at-large? The problem with the large > Debian mailling lists is that there is always someone more > interested in perceiving words in the most unfavorable form, > rather than actually getting work done. I am glad you answered this. I completely agree. Which is why I was caught off guard when told to abandon my plans to take APT 0.6 development to a separate (still open) list for the initial steps, to increase productivity by working in a "small group" at first. People were rather opposed. -- Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list! .''`. martin f. krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : :' :proud Debian developer, admin, user, and author `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system Invalid/expired PGP subkeys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver! signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Question for candidate Robinson
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 01:19:16PM +, MJ Ray wrote: > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If debian-legal is to be thrusted, they must be prepared to have an > > argumentation whichis able to convince the maintainer, and not try to force > > half-backed assertion down his throat, and thus have him look ridiculous in > > his dealing with his upstream. > > You've used this metaphor "thrusted" a couple of times and I didn't > understand what you meant by it. I think he means "trusted". - David Nusinow -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: dak and the debian infrastructure
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sven Luther) writes: > I know nobody excpt manty which is able to reproduce the builds of the > weekly/daily debian-cd thingies, and the debian-cd used to build them is > highly dependent on the archive organisation of the box on which it runs. For what it's worth, at least joeyh and I know how to reproduce these builds, and I have exercised my ability on several occasions to generate new hppa and ia64 images to test without waiting for a daily build to occur. It's really not that hard to figure out. Bdale -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform
Erinn Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > could get a voice within the debian-women culture. Probably > > a lot of the time that will be directing to FAQs or codes, > > but there's always something not covered there. Using a > > smaller number of people makes it easier to spot new conduct > > FAQs without overwhelming the list while people acculturate(?). > Yes. IIRC, this was applied to you which you disliked -- many of us > attempted to speak to you off-list and tell you why your on-list attempts > at engaging us weren't working. Alas... It wasn't applied to me. I suddenly had numerous people contacting me on- and off-list and I found most of them pretty offensive. That's why I suggested a troll advisor: part announcement, part greeter. > > I think you've not felt the need because debian-women hasn't > > been communicating with the rest of the project as much as when > > Amaya sent out that mailshot. > This is false. We regularly send updates to DWN (which we've already > established you don't read, but that's not our fault). Many members of DW, > specifically people in charge of it, are not DDs yet so we don't send > emails to d-d-a (yet). Amaya's mailshot is a larger message to a larger number of DDs than anything DW have sent out since, isn't it? I think "debian-women hasn't been communicating with the rest of the project as much" is still true despite some updates in "not an intra-project-communications medium". (quote from master:/home/debian/archive/debian-dwn/debian-dwn.200408.gz) If you want to communicate with debian, DWN isn't it. I'm sure there are friendly DDs who will send important news to d-d-a if asked. Even I would, but we'd probably disagree what's important. Please appoint one. > I think all we learned was to ignore people we consider destructive to our > goals. So yeah, I'm pretty sure that was the best thing. [...] We disagree, then. I think DW learned to hide more. > Something you may not be understanding is that we have had these debates > about a thousand times. They are not interesting, new, or fun. [...] No political decision is ever beyond scrutiny. If you don't want scrutiny on the DW list, then just direct it elsewhere, please. Don't participate if you think it's irrelevant. There was some confusion about the right place, back then. > Well, I've said my piece and don't plan to comment anymore. I've also set > the M-f-T accordingly for those who wish to continue the discussion. I think that's unhelpful, like the old usenet habit of setting FUs to alt.flame or AST. debian-project might be more appropriate. I had hoped more DPL candidates would weigh in. Maybe there'll be more in the debate, or maybe they're ashamed of their views now. ;-) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question for candidate Robinson
David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 01:19:16PM +, MJ Ray wrote: > > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > If debian-legal is to be thrusted, they must be prepared to have an > > > argumentation whichis able to convince the maintainer, and not try to > > > force > > > half-backed assertion down his throat, and thus have him look ridiculous > > > in > > > his dealing with his upstream. > > You've used this metaphor "thrusted" a couple of times and I didn't > > understand what you meant by it. > I think he means "trusted". (ROFLMAO) I apologise to Sven. Unfortunate combination of typo and metaphor. When I first read "thrusted", my mind went towards "promoted" as in "thrust forth" and I guess it stayed with that idea too long. -- Glad I was wrong again, MJR -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > For example, "Searching for Safety Online" (which recommends > "pro-active interventions") has been used to justify the > debate-killing silence policy in the List FAQ, which seems just > plain broken. Wait, you think that people have an obligation to reply to your messages, or else you are being censored? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > For example, "Searching for Safety Online" (which recommends > > "pro-active interventions") has been used to justify the > > debate-killing silence policy in the List FAQ, which seems just > > plain broken. > Wait, you think that people have an obligation to reply to your > messages, or else you are being censored? No, neither of those. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > For example, "Searching for Safety Online" (which recommends > > > "pro-active interventions") has been used to justify the > > > debate-killing silence policy in the List FAQ, which seems just > > > plain broken. > > Wait, you think that people have an obligation to reply to your > > messages, or else you are being censored? > > No, neither of those. So then what is your complaint about the "debate-killing silence policy"? Maybe you should be more explicit. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question for candidate Towns [Was, Re: DPL election IRC Debate - Call for questions]
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, Sven Luther wrote: > > > Yep, but there is a difference between the information being available, > > > and it > > > being actively feeded to the NSA or whoever. And it is especially > > > bothering if > > > this cause undue delay in our normal activities, like aj is saying it is. > > > > So, you want to abolish the DFSG? What part of free do you not understand? > > Notice that : > > 1) to have a package pass NEW, some manual BSwhatevr notification is needed. Any new binary will have to pass NEW. Having to do notifications doesn't change that(and that's an automatic process, anyways). > 2) this means that we are not free to do a modification of a package that > makes it go into NEW without the approval of the ftp-master *and* the > notification to said agency. Notifications are always done, anyways. See -devel-changes. > 3) Some would argue that this impose an additional fee or restriction (in > the same way as a post-card licence) on our distribution as part of debian. > (read the debian-legal posts for this past year or so, if you doubt). Only if every developer had to do it themself. But this notification is automated. > 4) furthermore, i believe that, altough it never happened, it could well be > that the BSwhatever agency may also once it reads the notification, reject > the export authorization for a particular package, no ? I am not aware of there being a reject procedure in place. > So, you want to go into DFSG flamewar, please go ahead. Understand how the system works first, which you don't seem to. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So then what is your complaint about the "debate-killing silence > policy"? Maybe you should be more explicit. See top and tail of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (also at http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2005/03/msg00471.html ) which is as explicit as it will get for now. Not enough time. I think we've seen that also elsewhere in debian and it's part of why the "hard" moderation for lists suggested by some candidates makes me uneasy. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: dak and the debian infrastructure
On 10224 March 1977, Sven Luther wrote: >> >or debian-cd, where only one person can usually use it with one precise >> >infrastructure in mind to build the debian isos. >> Pardon? > I know nobody excpt manty which is able to reproduce the builds of the > weekly/daily debian-cd thingies, and the debian-cd used to build them is > highly dependent on the archive organisation of the box on which it runs. Then you know the wrong people. Its easy to use after you read the docs/files that come with it. Ive built several CDs/DVDs with it now (including some booting from multiple architectures) and debian-cd itself wasnt the problem I had. -- bye Joerg [http://www.youam.net/stuff/info...-hosting.de/server-info.php] "Die Anbindung des Servers: Unser Server ist mit 100 MBits/s (=12MB pro Sekunde) an unser lokales Netzwerk angebunden, unsere Internetanbindung sind 768 kbit/s Downstream und 128 kbit/s Upstream. Dies hört sich in manchen Ohren langsam an, allerdings wird unsere Geschwindigkeit in der Regel eher gelobt als kritisiert, denn der Upstream kann auch "überzogen" werden, wenn der Server überlastet wird (wurde von uns an Beispielen getestet, ist allerdings nicht 100%-ig zu erklären)." pgpZAwKe0Prtd.pgp Description: PGP signature
Question for the Debate/Candidates
I'll keep it short and simple: What Muppet character do you see yourself as, and why? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question for candidate Towns
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, Frank Küster wrote: > Here's third one: > > (1) Hrm, ftpmaster aren't doing things as quickly as normal. > (2) Not that that's very quick anyway. > (3) Why the hell isn't there an explanation somewhere about the change > somewhere? > (4) What could we do to get the information? > (4a) Let's ask on -devel ==> here we go, an other flamewar > > (4b) ??? (4c) Profit!
Re: Question for the Debate/Candidates
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 02:18:43PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote: > I'll keep it short and simple: > > What Muppet character do you see yourself as, and why? "Swedish Chef", since i live in Sweden and love cooking! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So then what is your complaint about the "debate-killing silence > > policy"? Maybe you should be more explicit. > > See top and tail of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > (also at http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2005/03/msg00471.html ) > which is as explicit as it will get for now. Not enough time. Nothing in there is a FAQ, to which you referred. Nor does it say anything more than some people won't respond to you and the reasons. This sounds like you are upset beacuse you think people have some kind of obligation to respond. They don't. I notice that your constant refrain when people get a little to close here is that you suddenly beg off and claim not enough time. Claims like there being a "policy" which is in the "list FAQ" need to be substantiated or rescinded, not just repeated and then when you are asked for evidence you refer to your *own* message in which you once more assert the existence of some policy which does not, in fact, exist. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > See top and tail of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > (also at http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2005/03/msg00471.html ) > > which is as explicit as it will get for now. Not enough time. > Nothing in there is a FAQ, to which you referred. Nor does it say > anything more than some people won't respond to you and the reasons. The debian-women list FAQ is on http://women.alioth.debian.org/faqs/ and the odd policy is under "Miscellaneous" thus: Just like every other online community, there will probably be the occasional troll. Do not make the mistake of treating them like rational human beings. Ignore them and focus on positive discussions instead. One very useful document that everyone subscribing to the list should read is: Searching for Safety Online: Managing "Trolling" in a Feminist Forum. > This sounds like [random fiction] > I notice that your constant refrain when people get a little to close > here is that you suddenly beg off and claim not enough time. Rubbish. Close to what? You are mostly just contradicting, while attributing randomly invented opinions to me and asking very vague questions. This is a busy week, but there's a limited window before the DPL vote, so I stay on list, but ignore you except for points of information. > Claims like there being a "policy" which is in the "list FAQ" need to > be substantiated or rescinded, not just repeated and then when you are > asked for evidence you refer to your *own* message in which you once > more assert the existence of some policy which does not, in fact, > exist. Equally, claims that a policy doesn't exist should be retracted when you are shown the policy. Furthermore, jelly is good. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The debian-women list FAQ is on http://women.alioth.debian.org/faqs/ > and the odd policy is under "Miscellaneous" thus: > >Just like every other online community, there will probably >be the occasional troll. Do not make the mistake of treating >them like rational human beings. Ignore them and focus on >positive discussions instead. The idea to ignore trolls is hardly new, or unusual. Nor is it a "policy", in the sense that anyone is ordered to ignore them under pain of expulsion. > Equally, claims that a policy doesn't exist should be retracted > when you are shown the policy. Furthermore, jelly is good. There is no policy there. There is advice to ignore people who are failing to contribute usefully. Nothing more. If you think this is *wrong*, then why? Because you have a right to be responded to no matter what you say, even when you are hostile to the purposes the list was created for? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question for A. Towns - NM
Ean Schuessler wrote: Read more carefully and you will see that I suggest existing technologies (mail filtering, IRC /ignore) as solutions. The problem may be that some Debianers have better filtering in place than others. Personally, I don't see any reason why having filtering on the client is better than having it on the server -- even if just to stop people from getting confused at the "debian-devel" they read being different to the "debian-devel" others see. For those who read our mailing lists via the web archives, client side filtering isn't really possible, in any case. The "Censorship Boo-Man", as you deftly downplayed it, is the central motivation for this project. No, the central motivation for the project is to make a good, free operating system. The "Deb" stands for "Debra", not "Debating". If you are more interested in debating than producing good free software, I can certainly understand why you'd object to any restrictions on posts to the lists. If so, I'd suggest you'd be better served by a different project, personally -- perhaps IndyMedia or one of the other "new media" sites around. For Debian's purposes, I don't think anything that makes it harder or less fun to write good, free software is sacrosanct. That said, though, diverse opinions and forthright, friendly discussion usually makes it both easier *and* more fun. Cheers, aj -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question for candidate Towns
martin f krafft wrote: also sprach Anthony Towns [2005.03.03.1827 +0100]: usual flamewars be declared off topic and either having the thread killed or, if necessary, the poster suspended. I am not sure this is a good idea. First off, we're all about freedom, and what you suggest is more reminiscent of totalitarianism than freedom of speech. The debian-release mailing list has very specific guidelines for what's on-topic: namely, action items for release. That's proven, in my opinion, and I believe that of the current release managers, quite effective, and hasn't required any enforcement beyond polite reminders now and then. I don't know if polite reminders will be enough for other lists -- as your mail indicates, the idea that flamewars are varyingly unavoidable, necessary or good is fairly ingrained. If they *are* then that's great, I don't see any reason to do anything more than that if they are effective. If they're not, well, having usable lists is more important than having a debian.org soapbox for whatever you want to say. I can't see any way of having polite reminders work without some sort of statement from the DPL or the listmasters, probably with the prospect of some sort of enforcement, though, personally. I continue to hold my position that more communication from the delegates to the rest of the develoepers would probably solve the problem adequatly. I don't believe it's possible to separate these two issues: while delegates don't have the support of the project, it's very difficult to communicate with it. I suspect the converse is so obvious it doesn't even need stating. That said, there is no way to ban flamewars since they are sort of part of the nature of a project like this. There's a trivial way: moderate the lists. I think there are less fascist ways that'll be both effective and more efficient. But there's no point kidding ourselves that it'll be easy or that everyone'll be happy with the change. I am not trying to encourage or justify them; I just think that there should be no punishment for them in the way you propose. If you don't want the punishment, don't do the wrong thing :) The story would be a different one if I did not feel like dak was a magic potion, the child of a few Debian developers who have been with the project very long, and who have gathered so much experience that I cannot even grasp the extent. There's nothing magic about anything in Debian; it's all just 1's and 0's. Cheers, aj -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
subscribe
subscribe -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Question for candidate Walther
Hi Jonathan, In your platform[0], you state: I have a proven history of releasing software on time, on schedule. Project Xouvert, a stripped down version of the X11 source code, was released two times, six months apart. We didn't achieve many of our more ambitious goals, but we got a working release out the door on time, both times. This did not in any way line up with my recollection of how Xouvert fared at all, so I challenged you about it on IRC: < daniels> Project Xouvert, a stripped down version of the X11 source code, was released two times, six months apart. We didn't achieve many of our more ambitious goals, but we got a working release out the door on time, both times. < daniels> WHAT? < daniels> SirDinosaur: my understanding is that the first release came very late and was kind of a hack; I do not believe a second release ever occurred Unfortunately you never saw fit to reply. This has been something that's been intriguing me for a fair while, so I went digging. I have no reason to believe that the first release didn't ever occur, but 'on time' is interesting. Witness www.xouvert.org from October 24th, 2003[1]: Release 1 (October 1 - November 1, 2003) We will extract the X server source from the XFree86 CVS repository, and make it compile stand-alone. Then we will package it together with the latest video drivers and bugfixes to coexist with current distributions of XFree86. We hope to incorporate the DRI and Utah-glx work by release time, but if will definately have it incorporated shortly after release. Contrast this with the Xouvert 0.1 announcement[2]: Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 05:24:40 -0800 Thanks to the persistence of 17 year old Icelandic genius Andri Yngvason, and the support of the Xouvert team, our initial release is ready. You can download the source. It compiles and runs. Apply your favorite fixes, patches, and changes, create patchsets, and mail them to this mailing list so we can discuss them, critique them, and incorporate them. This release was either two months and six days, or one month and six days, late; depends on how you look at it. Presumably sometime around this stage (the web archive is from the 19th of December, 2003), www.xouvert.org was changed to say[3]: Roadmap Next Release (April 1, 2004) We will make the X server architecture more modular, as described in this email[4] from Owen Taylor. We will also put in place the infrastructure to release daily binary snapshots in RPM, Debian, and tar.gz formats for all major distributions. Priority will be given to those that provide us with facilities for compiling and testing. We will continue to incorporate new video drivers and bugfixes as they become available. We will definately incorporate the work of the DRI/DRM project by this release, and hopefully also we will have the MAS(R) sound extension to X integrated as well. We may update the build system with a make/automake/autoconf replacement based on extending the Scheme dialect implemented by a small Scheme interpeter. January's list traffic[5] consisted of a discussion about the release date[6], and nothing else of substance: you did not even post to any other thread. February's list traffic[7] consists of two mails: a mail entitled 'How's Xouvert?' from 'Shawn'[8] which mentions Xouvert's loss of momentum and asks for a status update (no reply), and someone called 'Cameron'[9] who asks how to compile only the servers (no reply, but for the record -- #define BuildServersOnly YES). Not only did you not post during the entire month of February (I believe there may have been extenuating circumstances), but none of the developers did, either. March's list traffic[10] sees your first post in months, in which you announce[11] that there has been a long radio silence, and that 'Xouvert at the moment is the XFree86 4.3 X server with Alan Cox's VIA drivers added'. There was no code behind this. Indeed, as you state later in the announcement: Our commit repositories are NOT functional; they are non-existant due to a hard drive crash. I believe your statement on what Xouvert was at the time referred to plans, not code. You mention that you were probably moving to the commit repositories to fd.o; I do not recall this ever having happened, there is no 'xouvert' group on gabe.freedesktop.org[12], and no posts from you to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (the fd.o admin list). So, at this time, we're assuming that there was no code, less than two months away from a release. Indeed, the goalposts were shifted, release 2 would effectively be a no-op, and release 3 was going to be
