Re: spi-trademark status, was: "Why" Debian Core Consortium ? Why not UserLinux? Why not Debian?

2005-09-05 Thread Benj. Mako Hill
> 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;

spi-trademark status, was: "Why" Debian Core Consortium ? Why not UserLinux? Why not Debian?

2005-09-02 Thread MJ Ray
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

Re: "Why" Debian Core Consortium ? Why not UserLinux? Why not Debian?

2005-08-26 Thread Adeodato Simó
* 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

Re: "Why" Debian Core Consortium ? Why not UserLinux? Why not Debian?

2005-08-25 Thread Benj. Mako Hill
> 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

Re: "Why" Debian Core Consortium ? Why not UserLinux? Why not Debian?

2005-08-24 Thread Michael K. Edwards
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

Re: "Why" Debian Core Consortium ? Why not UserLinux? Why not Debian?

2005-08-24 Thread Anthony Towns
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

Re: "Why" Debian Core Consortium ? Why not UserLinux? Why not Debian?

2005-08-24 Thread Benj. Mako Hill
> 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

Re: "Why" Debian Core Consortium ? Why not UserLinux? Why not Debian?

2005-08-24 Thread Branden Robinson / Debian Project Leader
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

Re: "Why" Debian Core Consortium ? Why not UserLinux? Why not Debian?

2005-08-19 Thread Anthony Towns
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

Re: "Why" Debian Core Consortium ? Why not UserLinux? Why not Debian?

2005-08-12 Thread Matthew Garrett
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

Re: "Why" Debian Core Consortium ? Why not UserLinux? Why not Debian?

2005-08-11 Thread Branden Robinson / Debian Project Leader
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

Re: "Why" Debian Core Consortium ? Why not UserLinux? Why not Debian?

2005-08-08 Thread Anthony Towns
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

Re: "Why" Debian Core Consortium ? Why not UserLinux? Why not Debian?

2005-08-08 Thread Matthew Garrett
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

Re: "Why" Debian Core Consortium ? Why not UserLinux? Why not Debian?

2005-08-07 Thread Martin Michlmayr
* 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

Re: "Why" Debian Core Consortium ? Why not UserLinux? Why not Debian?

2005-08-07 Thread Ian Murdock
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

Re: "Why" Debian Core Consortium ? Why not UserLinux? Why not Debian?

2005-08-07 Thread Martin Michlmayr
* 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

Re: "Why" Debian Core Consortium ? Why not UserLinux? Why not Debian?

2005-07-28 Thread Michael K. Edwards
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

Re: "Why" Debian Core Consortium ? Why not UserLinux? Why not Debian?

2005-07-28 Thread Jeff Licquia
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

"Why" Debian Core Consortium ? Why not UserLinux? Why not Debian?

2005-07-28 Thread Andre Felipe Machado
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