On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 03:43:33PM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> It sure seems that, in some sectors, disagreement is offensive, and offense
> trumps substance. (One might point to our current President in that regard,
> as well.)
> I kind of wonder if Debian is headed that way - given the way
Martin Steigerwald writes:
> Ian Jackson - 05.01.19, 18:17:
>> Very competently toxic people will calculate precisely what they can
>> get away with: they will ride roughshod over weak victims or in
>> situations with less visibility; when challenged by an authority who
>> can impose
On Sat, Jan 05, 2019 at 06:48:31PM +1000, Russell Stuart wrote:
> > On the FTP Team (of which I'm a non-delegated Assistant) it can take
> > weeks to get agreement on text to send out on an issue. The email I
> > sent relatively recently to d-d-a regarding the team's view on
> > listing
Dear Ian.
Ian Jackson - 05.01.19, 18:17:
> Very competently toxic people will calculate precisely what they can
> get away with: they will ride roughshod over weak victims or in
> situations with less visibility; when challenged by an authority who
> can impose consequences, they will lie and
On 2019/01/05 23:24, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> Military pilots of aircraft with ejection seats are limited both to a minimum
> and maximum height. It's not fair that if that's your dream job that you are
> excluded because you are too tall or too short, but it just isn't
> economically
> or
On Sat, Jan 05, 2019 at 04:24:32PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> I also have a lot of sympathy for people who feel they have been
> marginalized and it being worth working on making them feel welcome/not
> marginalized, but I think it has limits (and maybe this is the core of my
> concern
On 15273 March 1977, Matthew Vernon wrote:
Appeals to the DPL wouldn't be compatible with the current
version of our constitution.
That is sort-of orthogonal to whether they'd be a good idea or
not :) Yes, I see that the constitution specifically prohibits
the DPL from withdrawing the
On Saturday, January 05, 2019 08:42:57 PM Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hello Russ, Scott,
>
> On Fri 04 Jan 2019 at 11:44am -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Scott Kitterman writes:
> >> I am concerned about Debian becoming over-politicized (beyond the core
> >> issue of Free Software, which has an
Hello Russ, Scott,
On Fri 04 Jan 2019 at 11:44am -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Scott Kitterman writes:
>> I am concerned about Debian becoming over-politicized (beyond the core
>> issue of Free Software, which has an inherent political aspect). I like
>> that the diversity statement isn't
Hi Charles,
While I understand the concern you're voicing, I think there's a part
that's missing here (and my apologies in advance for adding to the
mass of emails that has been going on recently).
To me, the difference between the DM and DD status stands on a matter
of trust in 3 components
Hello,
On Fri 04 Jan 2019 at 05:29pm GMT, Ulrike Uhlig wrote:
>> Exactly. I understand Ulrike's practical concerns but do not consider
>> them to outweigh the need to avoid permanency. Even writing "possible
>> CoC violation" could hurt someone twenty years down the line.
>
> Ack. I have no
Hi all,
last month I expressed concerns related to the idea of demoting DDs to
DM status. I quote them at the end of the message for convenience.
Later, there has been a discussion on the theme that technical
excellence should not be a reason for tolerating misbehaviours
Jonathan Wiltshire writes:
> On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 11:26:01AM +, Matthew Vernon wrote:
>> Ben Hutchings writes:
>>
>> > On Thu, 2019-01-03 at 11:26 -0700, Eldon Koyle wrote:
>> >> 5. There doesn't appear to be an appeals process (contact DAM?)
>> > [...]
>> >
>> > There is, since any
Anthony Towns writes ("Re: Censorship in Debian"):
> On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 10:47:05AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > People seem to feel they're unreasonably put-upon by having to think about
> > what they're saying *at all*, but this is absurd. Everyone else in the
> > world is doing this all
On Saturday, January 05, 2019 06:48:31 PM Russell Stuart wrote:
> On Fri, 2019-01-04 at 23:56 -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > No. That's not how Debian works. This is a volunteer effort, not a
> > bureaucracy. Delegates are delegated certain authorities and it's up
> > to them to decide how
On 05.01.19 02:20, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Another action: people treating you poorly in ways over which they
> have personal discretion, such as refusing to work with you, calling
> you rude names, attacking you in public, and so forth, because of
> what you say or publish. We'll call that
On Fri, 2019-01-04 at 23:56 -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> No. That's not how Debian works. This is a volunteer effort, not a
> bureaucracy. Delegates are delegated certain authorities and it's up
> to them to decide how to exercise them. If the larger DD community
> sufficiently disagrees,
On 05.01.19 01:57, Eldon Koyle wrote
> Whether that form of censorship is good or bad or rights-infringing
> is a separate argument.
Thank you, that's exactly the point I was trying to make.
I'm not even arguing whether this specific action was good or bad or
rights-infringing.
--
Christian
On 04.01.19 23:44, Philip Hands wrote:
> Christian Kastner writes:
>
>> We agree on this: Debian's is a (very!) limited form of government.
>> However, I argue that censorship is within these limits.
>
> Debian doesn't even have enough legal existence to open a bank account,
> let alone apply
19 matches
Mail list logo
