Hey,
DMUP[1] still mentions rsh/telnet: "Please use ssh/scp if at all possible
rather than less secure alternatives (rsh, telnet or FTP)."
It should be stronger than "if at all possible", or even better just remove all
mention of rsh or telnet.
[1] http://www.debian.org
I read http://www.debian.org/devel/dmup in that:
| Debian does not have any Usenet news servers. It may be that some of
| the Debian machines have access to such a news server, but their use
| through Debian machines is strictly forbidden.
I would like to offer reader access to my news server
Hi,
find attached the final draft of the new DMUP version 1.1.2 to be
published on debian-devel-annou...@l.d.o on Sunday, May 9th, which would
mean the new version then would become effective on July 4th, 2010.
A full log of changes can be found at [1] and the patch-view can be
found at [2
Hi!
On 03.05.2010 10:45, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
If that is not deemed to be clear enough or satisfactory, I'm happy to
clarify any additional doubt that people might have.
Thanks, this (and the following) indeed clarified my questions.
Best regards,
Alexander
PS: Sorry, didn't saw y
On May 3, 2010, at 11:36 AM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 11:05:21AM +0200, Jeremiah Foster wrote:
>> So it seems like there are two processes here; expulsion and
>> deletion. Expulsion is a political process, deletion is a technical
>> process. One entity may have authorit
On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 11:05:21AM +0200, Jeremiah Foster wrote:
> So it seems like there are two processes here; expulsion and
> deletion. Expulsion is a political process, deletion is a technical
> process. One entity may have authority over the expulsion and another
> over the deletion. Am I rig
A) may lock accounts without needing to ask DAM first,
see 3.1.1 and 3.2.1 of the DMUP.
Cheers,
Martin
--
Martin Zobel-Helas | Debian System Administrator
Debian & GNU/Linux Developer | Debian Listmaster
Public key http://zobel.ftbfs.de/5d64f870.asc - KeyID: 5D64
This one time, at band camp, Jeremiah Foster said:
> So it seems like there are two processes here; expulsion and deletion.
> Expulsion is a political process, deletion is a technical process. One
> entity may have authority over the expulsion and another over the
> deletion. Am I right in assuming
02.05.2010 16:45, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
>>>> the Debian Project Leader recently asked DSA in his delegation[1] to
>>>> fix a flaw in the current version of the DMUP, the fact that
>>>> expulsions are DAM's domain, and not our's.
>>>
>&g
ently asked DSA in his delegation[1] to
>>> fix a flaw in the current version of the DMUP, the fact that
>>> expulsions are DAM's domain, and not our's.
>>
>> Could you please explain, why this is a flaw?
>
> I think that I should do that, but first let
; The ability to change DMUP is meant to allow the document to evolve
> with the addition of new services, technologies, security needs and
> procedures, etc.
>
> The first proposed limit to what can be changed by DSA is meant to fix
> a "flaw" in the current text. Decisio
Hi!
On 02.05.2010 16:45, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
the Debian Project Leader recently asked DSA in his delegation[1] to fix
a flaw in the current version of the DMUP, the fact that expulsions are
DAM's domain, and not our's.
Could you please explain, why this is a flaw?
Be
b11bf8217e99a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Stefano Zacchiroli
Date: Sun, 2 May 2010 18:07:17 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] suspending account is DAM territory
---
DMUP | 10 +-
1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/DMUP b/DMUP
index 8aba26e..ced
Hi,
the Debian Project Leader recently asked DSA in his delegation[1] to fix
a flaw in the current version of the DMUP, the fact that expulsions are
DAM's domain, and not our's.
I took the opportunity to also fix some other minor stuff in the current
version of the document. Please
Your message dated Fri, 4 Apr 2008 23:28:32 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Re: Bug#148034: DMUP: Please clarify limitation on news usage
has caused the Debian Bug report #148034,
regarding DMUP: Please clarify limitation on news usage
to be marked as done.
This
I originally posted this on <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> but was asked to resubmit
here.
- Forwarded message from Bart Trojanowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
From: Bart Trojanowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Usenet usage in DMUP
To: debian-www@lists.debian.org
Message-ID: <[EMA
to, but not targeted at, all
> developers. There is a distinction.
I'd assert that we only promote confusion with this dissonance.
If the DMUP is only meant as a document to bind the "bad kids" in our
ranks, then we shouldn't ask all new developers to adide by it.
If the DMU
>>"Branden" == Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Branden> On Mon, May 27, 2002 at 02:42:27PM -0600, Bdale Garbee wrote:
>> One way you could choose to think about this is that the DMUP isn't really
>> targeted at all Debian develope
On Mon, May 27, 2002 at 02:42:27PM -0600, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tore Anderson) writes:
>
> > IMO, the DMUP in it's current form addresses the DD's as lusers
> > instead of users - I agree fully with Branden on this one.
>
> One way you could
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tore Anderson) writes:
> IMO, the DMUP in it's current form addresses the DD's as lusers
> instead of users - I agree fully with Branden on this one.
One way you could choose to think about this is that the DMUP isn't really
targeted at all Debian
t we don't want to use our sponsors' newsservers, so they
won't get higher load, or something like that. Which is fair enough.
But I still can't see why reading news on public servers is prohibited.
In fact, I am not sure if the DMUP has addressed this at all.
> Tore>
ht it wasn't. Still, it's a
reasonable question to ask--should it be permitted?
I can't think of a good reason to prohibit it, in the case of public
news servers.
> Tore> OTOH, the fact that I can't file a bug directly at the DMUP like I
> Tore> can with the P
Tore> If I'm not allowed to read news from Debian machines at all, that's
Tore> fine.
Good.
Tore> OTOH, the fact that I can't file a bug directly at the DMUP like I
Tore> can with the Policy, and that the document isn't signed at all, is
Tore> *not*
use
> NNTP for the project. Donors should not have to provide the service,
> really, since it is unlikely to be used directly for project related
> work. If a donor has objected to providing sysadmin/bandwidth, and
> that is what prompted the DMUP, it is enough.
If I'm not
se. Debian does not use
NNTP for the project. Donors should not have to provide the service,
really, since it is unlikely to be used directly for project related
work. If a donor has objected to providing sysadmin/bandwidth, and
that is what prompted the DMUP, it is enough.
ma
On Sat, May 25, 2002 at 12:11:33AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Tore" == Tore Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Tore> Don't use Debian facilities in a manner which constitutes net
> Tore> abuse. Debian does not have any Usenet news servers. It may
> Tore> be that some of t
On Sat, May 25, 2002 at 12:11:33AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Tore" == Tore Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Tore> Don't use Debian facilities in a manner which constitutes net
> Tore> abuse. Debian does not have any Usenet news servers. It may
> Tore> be that some of th
>>"Tore" == Tore Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tore> Don't use Debian facilities in a manner which constitutes net
Tore> abuse. Debian does not have any Usenet news servers. It may
Tore> be that some of the Debian machines have access to such a
Tore> news server, but their use
On Fri, May 24, 2002 at 04:32:14PM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote:
> Package: project
> Version: N/A; reported 2002-05-24
> Severity: wishlist
>
> In the "Mail/News" paragraph of the DMUP, nothing is said about news
> at all. However, a few paragraphs further down, it
Package: project
Version: N/A; reported 2002-05-24
Severity: wishlist
In the "Mail/News" paragraph of the DMUP, nothing is said about news
at all. However, a few paragraphs further down, it states the following:
Don't use Debian facilities in a manner which constitutes net abuse
[DMUP]
On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 01:28:17PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> The team I assembled was not very responsive,
Agreed. Speaking as one of the people in that group -- I didn't
have a good idea of what to propose.
--
Raul
prospective developer to read
http://www.debian.org/devel/dmup
and agree to abide by the DMUP.
Gopal.
--
Gopal Narayanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Debian GNU/Linux Developer
Dept. of Astronomy, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Should we mention the Debian Machine Usage Policy to our applicants?
I think it might be a wise thing to do, at least in passing
Julian
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, QMW, Univ. of London. [EMAIL PROTECTED
Welcome to the DMUP rewrite mailing list.
This is a closed list, Gatewayed into [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/nomic.htm
I think we're playing the blind version where new players doesn't see
the initial ruleset and nobody got the complete ruleset.
--
Peter er ikke sur, han er sær -- og han er ikke DIKUs sureste koder,
men måsk
>>"Philippe" == Philippe Troin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Philippe> Of course, we have nothing better to do than playing the Debian
Philippe> Democracy Game. This piece of "policy" is so often used that it
Philippe> obviously need a rewrite.
Loaded words.
Philippe> Leave it up to
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000 03:12:40 Philippe Troin wrote:
> Of course, we have nothing better to do than playing the Debian
> Democracy Game.
Indeed. For those who wonder, the game is also called Nomic and the
rules are
available at:
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/nomic.htm
Marcus
On 24 Apr 2000, Philippe Troin wrote:
> Of course, we have nothing better to do than playing the Debian
> Democracy Game. This piece of "policy" is so often used that it
> obviously need a rewrite.
If this is how many people feel then I would like to simply have the
language of the policies in t
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>I was looking at the Debian Machine usage policy (to be found
> at http://www.debian.org/devel/dmup>), and found a number of
> glaring flaws and omissions. More ominously, I think that unlike the
> constitution, the DMU
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think it needs a rewrite, and one that should go through a
> better review process than the current one did. An document that
> determines the rulkes and penalties that the developer community has
> to live by should noit be decided by a sma
CT) be OK.
> I guess this must not be clear to people who don't administer news
> servers but it seemed very intuitivly obvious to me when I first read
> the DMUP (and I was glad to have that point clarified, as I was at the
> time looking for a good news feed).
I guess the point i
ser). This is often a quite
honest and aboveboard thing to do, but it can shade into a grey area.
The debian project's machines are in one such grey area. We are donated
machines and bandwidth, but as a side effect this also may give us access to
the news servers accessable from the donated m
Hi,
I was looking at the Debian Machine usage policy (to be found
at http://www.debian.org/devel/dmup>), and found a number of
glaring flaws and omissions. More ominously, I think that unlike the
constitution, the DMUP places uncontrolled power into the hands of
the DSA, with
43 matches
Mail list logo
