Filipus wrote:
> Drew Parsons must also have been commenting the point of view which joey
> sends
> by implying that dunc-tank is unfortunate, as DWN should be NPOV. If you
> don't like that people are paid to work on Debian, you can help Debian
> anyway...but it's s
On Tue, 2006-11-28 at 21:05 +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> ---
> ...Due to unfortunate [1]circumstances the weekly
> newsletter stopped being released weekly
>
> 1. http://www.dunc-tank.org/
Give it a rest alright, won't yo
> > However in the comment this writer pointed out that consensus, on the
> > contrary, is when we find a solution that we all agree we can live with,
> > even if we don't particularly think it's a great idea.
>
> I don't particularly like that definition, but you may find this
> article interest
In the course of the debates about the value of the funding experiment,
someone made a comment about what consensus actually means. I hadn't
thought about it that way before (possibly evidence of poor education),
so I thought I'd lift it up so the meme can infect everyone else too.
I had been c
Ian wrote:
> Drew Parsons writes ("Re: Position Statement to the Dunc-Tanc "experiment""):
> > The first group, the minority, believes that any use of money to
> > increase the time developers spend on Debian is always intrinsically a
> > bad
First I will state my personal position. I think the original intent
and idea of the DPL - to leverage available funds to assist the process
of finishing a stable release - is a great one. Money is a tool to be
used, there's no sense letting it lie around just gathering interest.
The fact that on
On Thu, 2005-04-14 at 22:00 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
>
> [Note Mail-Followup-To:]
Noted, but the problem is not everyone is subscribed to debian-project,
which makes continuity of the discussion somewhat awkward...
>
> The interesting bit is the bit that is explictly omitted: the rationale.
> It
7 matches
Mail list logo
