> So, it looks to me like help is most needed with educating about
> the debian trademark, drafting the more general trademark policy
> and summarising to SPI's board and members. Corrections welcome.
Yes. Help would be welcome in all of these areas. Of course, this need
not be a complete listl;
Branden Robinson / Debian Project Leader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The SPI trademark committee[3] still exists and still needs support from
> Debian's Developers, all of whom are automatically eligible for SPI
> membership[4] and can sign up to join its mailing list. Mako Hill and Greg
> Pomera
* Benj. Mako Hill [Wed, 24 Aug 2005 18:21:38 -0400]:
> FWIW, I've also heard people complain that we have unfairly played up
> our Debian roots. ;-)
Now I'm curious, can you give some background about this?
--
Adeodato Simó
EM: asp16 [ykwim] alu.ua.es | PK: DA6AE621
Ara que ets la meva
> I can't see how making the topic disappear from public view by
> moving discussions to spi-trademark would particularly help raise
> awareness.
In terms of the DCC, the decision is ultimately going to be to Don. In
terms of a trademark policy, the decision to accept that policy it
will ultimate
On 8/24/05, Benj. Mako Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Just out of curiosity, what interests do you think the DCC Alliance
> > has that aren't in ours? If you don't know, have you asked?
>
> The goal of the project seems to be create a large binary-compatible
> core upon which folks can ce
On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 04:18:16PM -0500, Branden Robinson / Debian Project
Leader wrote:
> > I don't think the "Debian Core Consortium" is clearly in Debian's
> > interests, and I think someone should be looking into it with Debian's
> > interests at heart.
> Just out of curiosity, what interests
> Just out of curiosity, what interests do you think the DCC Alliance
> has that aren't in ours? If you don't know, have you asked?
The goal of the project seems to be create a large binary-compatible
core upon which folks can certify their software. Basically, this is
really only useful to prop
On Sat, Aug 20, 2005 at 03:09:43AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 03:37:47PM -0500, Branden Robinson / Debian Project
> Leader wrote:
> > > Hrm. leader@ cc'ed.
> > It's unclear to me exactly what sort of reponse you're soliciting, but I
> > did my best.
>
> I don't think th
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 03:37:47PM -0500, Branden Robinson / Debian Project
Leader wrote:
> > Hrm. leader@ cc'ed.
> It's unclear to me exactly what sort of reponse you're soliciting, but I
> did my best.
I don't think the "Debian Core Consortium" is clearly in Debian's
interests, and I think some
Branden Robinson / Debian Project Leader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I guess something like 2%-5% of the developer body as a whole is=20
>> involved in the "DCC"; I wouldn't like to hazard a guess at what=20
>> proportion of Debian's extended userbase use distros involved in it)
>
> For it to b
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 12:02:21PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Ian Murdock wrote:
> >What does that mean exactly, "to talk to Debian"? The DPL is in
> >the loop, plus a dozen or more Debian developers that work for the
> >participating organizations.
>
> Which is to say, no one outside the parti
Ian Murdock wrote:
What does that mean exactly, "to talk to Debian"? The DPL is in
the loop, plus a dozen or more Debian developers that work for the
participating organizations.
Which is to say, no one outside the partipating organisations is in the
loop?
Isn't this a good opportunity for e
Ian Murdock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What does that mean exactly, "to talk to Debian"? The DPL is in
> the loop, plus a dozen or more Debian developers that work for the
> participating organizations.
At Debconf (so some time after news of the DCC had appeared), the DPL
denied having been ap
* Ian Murdock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-08-07 17:59]:
> > Do you seriously think that a new organization which hasn't
> > actually talked to Debian at all before being created will help
> > bring some of these closer to Debian proper?
> What does that mean exactly, "to talk to Debian"? The DPL is
Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> I agree that this is a good idea but I fail to see how this new
> alliance will bring this about. Why do we need yet another 3rd party
> to foster closer cooperation with Debian (instead of creating the
> structures which are needed within Debian)? Do you seriously think
* Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-07-28 11:46]:
> At DebConf, it was announced that there are somewhere around 130
> different distros based on Debian. Do you think that bringing some
> of these closer together, and closer to Debian proper, is a bad
> thing?
I agree that this is a good ide
On 7/28/05, Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 14:54 +, Andre Felipe Machado wrote:
> > Please, explain these issues.
>
> The short explanation, I think, is that people often have different
> ideas.
The longer explanation, I think, can be had by looking back in th
On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 14:54 +, Andre Felipe Machado wrote:
> Please, explain these issues.
The short explanation, I think, is that people often have different
ideas.
At DebConf, it was announced that there are somewhere around 130
different distros based on Debian. Do you think that bringing
Hello,
I read the press articles and Ian's blog looking for the DCC reasoning.
I still do not realize WHY should DCC be created.
There are some very nice ideas:
- predictable releases (18 to 24 months server, 6 to 12 months desktop?)
- predictable support for time after release
- a Debian base core
19 matches
Mail list logo
