Hello Don,
Am 2008-12-27 03:31:45, schrieb Don Armstrong:
> If you don't want to deal with the occasional spam that gets through,
> then feel free to unsubscribe. Furthemore, the thresholds for
> automatic unsubscription are set fairly high anyway; the warning
> messages we send out are for your i
Am 2008-12-27 16:55:58, schrieb Jeroen Massar:
> I already pointed this out the previous time I was complaining about
> getting unsubscribed. liszt.debian.org seems to run the same setup:
> postfix+spamassasin (though I dunno if you are using spamass-milter
> there, but you should otherwise); it se
I have a new email address!You can now email me at: mar_tinden...@ymail.com
Sir/Madam,
Ive business to discuss with you, please contact me, for more details
Dent
- Martin Dent
Hello Jeroen,
I am on 65 Debian Lists (or 147 in total) and from Debian I get per day
less then 38 spams... and most are filtered by "spamassassin" and some
simple "procmail" rules...
Oh yes, the BTS (I am subscribed to any packages installed on my own
systems and those of my customers, he
Filipus Klutiero wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > I consider filtered indices, auto-responses, shadow lists of only
> > "good" messages, highlighting, integration with db.debian.org and some
> > of the other uses for this data to be recommendation systems.
> >
> A filtered thread index as proposed is
Hallo! Du (Michelle Konzack) hast geschrieben:
>In how many languages do you receive messages?
>
>I get german, english, french, spanish, portugues, arabic, turkish and
>persian messages
>
>Some times I get korean and chinese to because I have business contacts
>there.
>
>Tried to educate "spama
Osamu Aoki wrote:
> I am sick of seeing too many votes/policy-discussion/... to force other
> volunteers to obey particular action patters. Basic principle of this
> project should be more inclusive one and volunteer one. It should not
> be a one of exclusion and enforcement. Volunteer project
Thanks for writing to my email address; I'm not subscribed to the list as you
may have realized.
Le December 29, 2008 06:59:30 am MJ Ray, vous avez écrit :
> Filipus Klutiero wrote:
> > MJ Ray wrote:
> > > I consider filtered indices, auto-responses, shadow lists of only
> > > "good" messages, h
Hi,
I have felt for some time that the low requirement for seconds on General
Resolutions is something that should be fixed. We are over 1000
Developers, if you can't find more than 5 people supporting your idea,
its most probably not worth it taking time of everyone. Various IRC
discussions told
Joerg Jaspert writes:
> a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor
> a resolution, but floor(2Q). [see §4.2(1)]
This would mean that you need almost as many sponsors as is required
for the quorum (2Q vs 3Q). I think that is too much. I think floor(Q)
sponsors wou
This one time, at band camp, Kalle Kivimaa said:
> Joerg Jaspert writes:
> > a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor
> > a resolution, but floor(2Q). [see §4.2(1)]
>
> This would mean that you need almost as many sponsors as is required
> for the quorum (2Q vs
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Therefore the Debian project resolves that
> a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor
> a resolution, but floor(2Q). [see §4.2(1)]
> b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)],
> as well as resolut
Don Armstrong writes:
> 1: I'd be happier, though, if those proposing and seconding options
> would be more careful about the effects that their options may have,
> and be more vigilant about withdrawing options when more palletable
> options exist.
Absolutely agreed with this sentiment.
> You
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
>
> General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
> Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements
> to initiate one are too smal
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 00:54:41 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> I have felt for some time that the low requirement for seconds on General
> Resolutions is something that should be fixed. We are over 1000
> Developers, if you can't find more than 5 people supporting your idea,
> its most probably not wo
Ben Finney writes:
> Don Armstrong writes:
>> You should not be proposing or seconding an option that you don't
>> plan on ranking first.
> This seems quite wrong. Why should one not carefully and precisely
> phrase and propose an option that one does *not* agree with, in order to
> get it vote
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 01:50:37AM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>> b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)],
>> as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting
>> period or to overwrite a TC decision [§4.2(2.
Russ Allbery writes:
> Ben Finney writes:
> > Don Armstrong writes:
>
> >> You should not be proposing or seconding an option that you don't
> >> plan on ranking first.
>
> > This seems quite wrong. Why should one not carefully and precisely
> > phrase and propose an option that one does *not
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Ben Finney wrote:
> Another purpose, that I've seen recently a few times, is people
> proposing *several* discrete options for a ballot, carefully
> phrasing them to be distinct in order to clarify the meaning of the
> vote's result.
If no one is going to rank those options hi
Ben Finney writes:
> I get the feeling you've excluded the middle between “propose an option
> one does not plan on raking first”, and “propose an option no-one
> wants on the ballot”.
I'm not sure that I find it usefully different, unless what you're
proposing is a compromise that you hope ever
Don Armstrong writes:
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Ben Finney wrote:
> > Another purpose, that I've seen recently a few times, is people
> > proposing *several* discrete options for a ballot, carefully
> > phrasing them to be distinct in order to clarify the meaning of
> > the vote's result.
>
> If no
Russ Allbery writes:
> Sure, I'm all for clarity and precision. I just don't see a reason
> to put the ones that no one wants to champion on the final ballot.
Nor do I. You still seem to be making an unnecessary connection
between “the option isn't well supported enough to be on the ballot”
and
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have felt for some time that the low requirement for seconds on General
> Resolutions is something that should be fixed. We are over 1000
> Developers, if you can't find more than 5 people supporting your idea,
> its most probably not worth it
23 matches
Mail list logo
