On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 01:07:22 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli
wrote:
>Heck, during the past months I know that you (again, as in DPL+2IC) have
>been doing stuff, quite a lot of very good stuff in fact, but nobody
>knows that, beside who has spoken to you via some private media (I'm one
>of them).
Well sa
On Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 07:54:51AM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > First of all an objection to the basic principle: the fact that the
> > project "does not seem" to be able to have constructive discussion is
> > not an argument for not having them. I believe that given you
On ven., 2009-12-04 at 07:54 +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> Sorry, but trying to have a constructive discussion in between
> complaints, hijack scenarios and ill informed suggestions does not look
> very tempting to me and quite frankly I don't know how to make such a
> discussion constructive.
The thi
On Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 07:54:51AM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> Sorry, but I cannot disclose what is told to me in private.
Yes you can, you just cannot do it without announcing it beforehand to
the parties involved.
--
The biometric identification system at the gates of the CIA headquarters
works
On Fri, Dec 04 2009, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Dec 2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Nothing wrong with that. But when people are told to shut up
>> since Supe Speshul Sekrit discussions are going one betwen Really Ver
>> Important People, and the people partaking in the open dis
Russell Coker writes:
> They were asked to take it to private email - which is not the same as
> telling them to shut up.
I maintain that it *is* the same thing, unless very carefully phrased to
avoid that interpretation. The message received is at least as important
as the message intended.
>
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 07:45:30PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
>> Unfortunately Debian does not seem to be able to also have real
>> constructive discussion about complex issues on the lists. So for these
>> issues we usually have real discussions on IRC, real life, phone or
On Fri, 4 Dec 2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Nothing wrong with that. But when people are told to shut up
> since Supe Speshul Sekrit discussions are going one betwen Really Ver
> Important People, and the people partaking in the open discussions are
> not important enough to be heard
On Thu, Dec 03 2009, Russell Coker wrote:
> It's really not uncommon for small groups of developers to discuss things
> privately before raising matters for discussion on the lists or for list
> discussions to be continued in private mail.
Nothing wrong with that. But when people are t
On Fri, 4 Dec 2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 03 2009, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Luk Claes wrote:
> >> Unfortunately Debian does not seem to be able to also have real
> >> constructive discussion about complex issues on the lists. So for these
> >> issues we usually have real discussions on
On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 07:45:30PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> Unfortunately Debian does not seem to be able to also have real
> constructive discussion about complex issues on the lists. So for these
> issues we usually have real discussions on IRC, real life, phone or
> private mail. The final resu
On Thu, Dec 03 2009, Joey Hess wrote:
> Luk Claes wrote:
>> Unfortunately Debian does not seem to be able to also have real
>> constructive discussion about complex issues on the lists. So for these
>> issues we usually have real discussions on IRC, real life, phone or
>> private mail. The final r
On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 07:45:30PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> Unfortunately Debian does not seem to be able to also have real
> constructive discussion about complex issues on the lists. So for these
> issues we usually have real discussions on IRC, real life, phone or
> private mail. The final resu
Luk Claes wrote:
> Unfortunately Debian does not seem to be able to also have real
> constructive discussion about complex issues on the lists. So for these
> issues we usually have real discussions on IRC, real life, phone or
> private mail. The final result of these discussions is normally also o
Joey Hess wrote:
> So, Debian is no longer an open project?
Why would having pointless discussions and flames on the lists
and because of that private discussions to get real solutions mean that
Debian is not an open project anymore?
The problems are known and are on the lists, the start of discu
15 matches
Mail list logo
