On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 05:56:31PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> Almost the complete debian.org infrastructure got rebuilt after the
> compromise in like, two weeks?
Eh? It got diffed against known-uncompromised copies and re-enabled.
> That was several orders of magnitude more
> work than it wi
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 05:03:56PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> I have only talked about the re-admission of people to the project.
> When someone wants to join again, you obviously look at what kind of
> work they did in the past. [...]
> I said, in a nutshell, that generally people who've
>
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 07:27:53PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > That is, the tech-ctty seems to have taken its role to be only a very
> > last resort when everything is breaking in some situation, but that
> > can be way too late to get involved.
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 07:27:53PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> That is, the tech-ctty seems to have taken its role to be only a very
> last resort when everything is breaking in some situation, but that
> can be way too late to get involved. I think a little gentle, and
> carefully worded
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 08:20:40PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 09:19:40AM +0200, Mikko Moilanen wrote:
> > Declare it as nonfree and I will quit immediatly using Debian, and I
> > will remove Debian from my relatives and friends too.
>
> OH MY GOD!! NOO!!!1!
>
> Ahem.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I see. As a tech ctte member, I would be interested in knowing
> how I contribute to this state of "mostly not working". Are we all at
> fault? Some of us are? Which ones? What can be done to address this
> issue?
Will, I don't agree with th
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> the word "fuck" is used in everyday conversation, and has been for
> as long as i can remember.
Except that you made it perfectly clear that in this case you *did*
intend the offense. In fact, you said that something I did meant I
deserved to have yo
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 05:56:31PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> Almost the complete debian.org infrastructure got rebuilt after the
> compromise in like, two weeks?
Eh? It got diffed against known-uncompromised copies and re-enabled.
> That was several orders of magnitude more
> work than it wi
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 05:03:56PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> I have only talked about the re-admission of people to the project.
> When someone wants to join again, you obviously look at what kind of
> work they did in the past. [...]
> I said, in a nutshell, that generally people who've
>
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't understand you. You claim that all the packages in non-free
> should go, and when i point you out a method on how to do that, you
> refuse to do that and speak bureaucrasy.
I'm saying that we don't have any policy to permit anyone but the
maintain
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 07:27:53PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > That is, the tech-ctty seems to have taken its role to be only a very
> > last resort when everything is breaking in some situation, but that
> > can be way too late to get involved.
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 07:27:53PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> That is, the tech-ctty seems to have taken its role to be only a very
> last resort when everything is breaking in some situation, but that
> can be way too late to get involved. I think a little gentle, and
> carefully worded
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 08:20:40PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 09:19:40AM +0200, Mikko Moilanen wrote:
> > Declare it as nonfree and I will quit immediatly using Debian, and I
> > will remove Debian from my relatives and friends too.
>
> OH MY GOD!! NOO!!!1!
>
> Ahem.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I see. As a tech ctte member, I would be interested in knowing
> how I contribute to this state of "mostly not working". Are we all at
> fault? Some of us are? Which ones? What can be done to address this
> issue?
Will, I don't agree with th
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> the word "fuck" is used in everyday conversation, and has been for
> as long as i can remember.
Except that you made it perfectly clear that in this case you *did*
intend the offense. In fact, you said that something I did meant I
deserved to have yo
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't understand you. You claim that all the packages in non-free
> should go, and when i point you out a method on how to do that, you
> refuse to do that and speak bureaucrasy.
I'm saying that we don't have any policy to permit anyone but the
maintain
Thank you for your e-mail. Currently we are working to improve our level of
customer service. Unfortunately to allow for these enhancements we have taken
down our computer system to be upgraded. We have received and filed your
e-mail. Please allow us several days to respond. Thank you for shopp
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 12:02:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-03-12 10:36:58 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:24:38AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> >>Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>>Did you fill a bug report against mpg123 aski
Thank you for your e-mail. Currently we are working to improve our level of customer
service. Unfortunately to allow for these enhancements we have taken down our
computer system to be upgraded. We have received and filed your e-mail. Please allow
us several days to respond. Thank you for shopp
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 12:02:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-03-12 10:36:58 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:24:38AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> >>Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>>Did you fill a bug report against mpg123 aski
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 08:58:58AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>> I will also say this; when you use that kind of language, your will fail to
>> get your point across. When I saw your that e-mail full of cu
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 09:19:40AM +0200, Mikko Moilanen wrote:
> Declare it as nonfree and I will quit immediatly using Debian, and I
> will remove Debian from my relatives and friends too.
OH MY GOD!! NOO!!!1!
Ahem. We grew out of the "..., or I quite!" argumentation a few years ago
in Debi
* Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-12 13:49]:
> Anyways, rereading what you've said, it sounds to me as if your own
> priorities have been the most significant obstacle you've had for
> fixing what you see as the problem you see the committee having.
Yes.
> If you think the committee shou
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 08:58:58AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>> I will also say this; when you use that kind of language, your will fail to
>> get your point across. When I saw your that e-mail full of cu
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 05:35:31PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> I have no problem with you as a person. I have a problem with how
> members of the Technical Committee are appointed, because the current
> way seems too conservative.
Well, it's not really me as a person which is at issue here.
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 08:05:04PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-11 13:52]:
> > But, even more important than individual interactions is energy and
> > drive.
> >
> > That's what I'm still trying to figure out about the both of you.
>
> I can only inv
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 09:19:40AM +0200, Mikko Moilanen wrote:
> Is it too much if somebody says "Please let others know that I did
> wrote this manual? Also, please don't let them change my personal
> opinions about X, Y and Z."? Yes, it is too much and that's why we
> need GNU FDL.
[...]
> Decla
* Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-12 12:27]:
> So, even if you think that the only thing wrong with the committee is
> who is on it [and not what it's doing] I still don't see that you've
> even tried to fix what you see as the problem.
I never said I did. In fact, I explictly said sever
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 11:35:41AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > In the context of the proposed amendment to the Social Contract, one
> > of many issues is:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 05:56:31PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> Care to share the other issues with us, so might actually resolve them?
T
* Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-12 12:11]:
> I'm somewhat bothered that the only criticisms you have of the
> Technical Committee are aimed at its membership.
>
> If you had specific criticisms of what it does, or suggestions of
> what it will do, I would have no objection to criticisms
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 12:11:17PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> I'm somewhat bothered that the only criticisms you have of the Technical
> Committee are aimed at its membership.
Also, I should add: you never talked to any of us [that I'm aware of]
about people who you thought would be better in th
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 09:19:40AM +0200, Mikko Moilanen wrote:
> Declare it as nonfree and I will quit immediatly using Debian, and I
> will remove Debian from my relatives and friends too.
OH MY GOD!! NOO!!!1!
Ahem. We grew out of the "..., or I quite!" argumentation a few years ago
in Debi
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 01:59:04PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> Raul Miller's @debian.org email address bounced for ages, it was
> pointed out to him but he didn't fix it; at the same time, he was
> posting to -vote and other lists. However, he did not maintain his
> packages at all, which lea
* Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-12 11:00]:
> So, given that you don't think "maintainers who neglect their duties
> and don't follow documented procedures" should "be treated the same
> as maintainers who leave the project properly", how do you propose
> to treat them?
[...]
> ...bu
* Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-12 13:49]:
> Anyways, rereading what you've said, it sounds to me as if your own
> priorities have been the most significant obstacle you've had for
> fixing what you see as the problem you see the committee having.
Yes.
> If you think the committee shou
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 11:35:41AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> In the context of the proposed amendment to the Social Contract, one
> of many issues is:
Care to share the other issues with us, so might actually resolve them?
> do most of us believe it's doable in the time frame imposed by that
>
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 05:35:31PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> I have no problem with you as a person. I have a problem with how
> members of the Technical Committee are appointed, because the current
> way seems too conservative.
Well, it's not really me as a person which is at issue here.
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 08:05:04PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-11 13:52]:
> > But, even more important than individual interactions is energy and
> > drive.
> >
> > That's what I'm still trying to figure out about the both of you.
>
> I can only inv
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 03:34:45PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> >One of the good things about Debian is that we don't have some
> >particular
> >person culling everything they happen to think is pointless.
> One of the bad things about Debian is that we apparently have to
> resort to a GR to cull point
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 08:57:14AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> This proposal is not vapourware nor is it theoretical. We've discussed
> it in small groups already, and I believe it's doable, and probably
> will result in *.nonfree.org being operational. Sorry to disappoint you.
"I believe it'
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 09:19:40AM +0200, Mikko Moilanen wrote:
> Is it too much if somebody says "Please let others know that I did
> wrote this manual? Also, please don't let them change my personal
> opinions about X, Y and Z."? Yes, it is too much and that's why we
> need GNU FDL.
[...]
> Decla
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 02:58:02PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Personally, I find swearing much less offensive than making things so
> personal that you title threads with things like "Serious problems with
> Mr Troup" or "Why Anthony Towns is wrong".
...which is why you felt compelled to quote
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 06:19:46PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-09 01:07]:
> > I fully agree with you that it's important to follow the documented
> > procedure when leaving the project, but I don't think you're going
> > to persuade more people t
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 03:53:00PM +1030, Ron wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 06:25:47PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > Furthermore, I'd like to hear why you think that
> > I am not honest and enthusiastic, and ideally I'd like to see some
> > concrete examples.
>
> The only 'example' I can h
* Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-12 12:27]:
> So, even if you think that the only thing wrong with the committee is
> who is on it [and not what it's doing] I still don't see that you've
> even tried to fix what you see as the problem.
I never said I did. In fact, I explictly said sever
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 11:35:41AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > In the context of the proposed amendment to the Social Contract, one
> > of many issues is:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 05:56:31PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> Care to share the other issues with us, so might actually resolve them?
T
* Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-12 12:11]:
> I'm somewhat bothered that the only criticisms you have of the
> Technical Committee are aimed at its membership.
>
> If you had specific criticisms of what it does, or suggestions of
> what it will do, I would have no objection to criticisms
On 2004-03-12 13:01:31 + Anthony Towns
wrote:
Perhaps. But you're looking at this wrong: the question is whether the
package can be replaced effectively enough to convince the maintainer
that it's not worth keeping around.
Sure, but that requires a different approach to simply pointing o
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 12:11:17PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> I'm somewhat bothered that the only criticisms you have of the Technical
> Committee are aimed at its membership.
Also, I should add: you never talked to any of us [that I'm aware of]
about people who you thought would be better in th
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 01:59:04PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> Raul Miller's @debian.org email address bounced for ages, it was
> pointed out to him but he didn't fix it; at the same time, he was
> posting to -vote and other lists. However, he did not maintain his
> packages at all, which lea
* Ron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-12 15:53]:
> > Furthermore, I'd like to hear why you think that I am not honest
> > and enthusiastic, and ideally I'd like to see some concrete
> > examples.
> Why is it that you think I said *you* were not h&e?
> (and I don't expect you to answer that here, bu
* Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-12 11:00]:
> So, given that you don't think "maintainers who neglect their duties
> and don't follow documented procedures" should "be treated the same
> as maintainers who leave the project properly", how do you propose
> to treat them?
[...]
> ...bu
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 11:35:41AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> In the context of the proposed amendment to the Social Contract, one
> of many issues is:
Care to share the other issues with us, so might actually resolve them?
> do most of us believe it's doable in the time frame imposed by that
>
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 03:34:45PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> >One of the good things about Debian is that we don't have some
> >particular
> >person culling everything they happen to think is pointless.
> One of the bad things about Debian is that we apparently have to
> resort to a GR to cull point
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 08:57:14AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> This proposal is not vapourware nor is it theoretical. We've discussed
> it in small groups already, and I believe it's doable, and probably
> will result in *.nonfree.org being operational. Sorry to disappoint you.
"I believe it'
* Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-11 15:43]:
> Ok, but you've also stated "I think the Technical Committee is
> mostly not working because of its current members", and in a more
> general context
>
> If it's not working well, you could at least spell out what you'ld
> like to see.
I thin
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 02:58:02PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Personally, I find swearing much less offensive than making things so
> personal that you title threads with things like "Serious problems with
> Mr Troup" or "Why Anthony Towns is wrong".
...which is why you felt compelled to quote
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 12:02:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> It seems reasonable to ask whether the maintainer can just close or
> ignore the bug as invalid before N people file M bugs against non-free
> with apparent replacements in main.
Perhaps. But you're looking at this wrong: the question is
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 06:19:46PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-09 01:07]:
> > I fully agree with you that it's important to follow the documented
> > procedure when leaving the project, but I don't think you're going
> > to persuade more people t
* Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-12 00:24]:
> I see. As a tech ctte member, I would be interested in knowing
> how I contribute to this state of "mostly not working". Are we all at
> fault? Some of us are? Which ones? What can be done to address this
> issue?
As I pointed o
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 03:53:00PM +1030, Ron wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 06:25:47PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > Furthermore, I'd like to hear why you think that
> > I am not honest and enthusiastic, and ideally I'd like to see some
> > concrete examples.
>
> The only 'example' I can h
On 2004-03-12 13:01:31 + Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Perhaps. But you're looking at this wrong: the question is whether the
package can be replaced effectively enough to convince the maintainer
that it's not worth keeping around.
Sure, but that requires a different approach to si
* Ron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-12 15:53]:
> > Furthermore, I'd like to hear why you think that I am not honest
> > and enthusiastic, and ideally I'd like to see some concrete
> > examples.
> Why is it that you think I said *you* were not h&e?
> (and I don't expect you to answer that here, bu
* Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-11 15:43]:
> Ok, but you've also stated "I think the Technical Committee is
> mostly not working because of its current members", and in a more
> general context
>
> If it's not working well, you could at least spell out what you'ld
> like to see.
I thin
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 12:02:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> It seems reasonable to ask whether the maintainer can just close or
> ignore the bug as invalid before N people file M bugs against non-free
> with apparent replacements in main.
Perhaps. But you're looking at this wrong: the question is
* Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-12 00:24]:
> I see. As a tech ctte member, I would be interested in knowing
> how I contribute to this state of "mostly not working". Are we all at
> fault? Some of us are? Which ones? What can be done to address this
> issue?
As I pointed o
On 2004-03-12 10:36:58 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:24:38AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Did you fill a bug report against mpg123 asking for just that ?
Is it a bug? Currently, there is no sense in my m
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:24:38AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Did you fill a bug report against mpg123 asking for just that ?
>
> Is it a bug? Currently, there is no sense in my mind in which
> "unnecessarly in non-free" constitutes a bug.
Le ven 12/03/2004 à 08:19, Mikko Moilanen a écrit :
> Declare it as nonfree and I will quit immediatly using Debian, and I
> will remove Debian from my relatives and friends too. If A -> B.
So what? If you are not able to understand what "Free software" means,
maybe you don't want to use Debian. T
On 2004-03-12 10:36:58 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:24:38AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Did you fill a bug report against mpg123 asking for just that ?
Is it a bug? Currently, there is no sense in my mind
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:24:38AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Did you fill a bug report against mpg123 asking for just that ?
>
> Is it a bug? Currently, there is no sense in my mind in which
> "unnecessarly in non-free" constitutes a bug.
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > requires work and copying the non-free bugs over as well, and you'd
> > lose the ability to reassign bugs from and to free packages to and
> > from non-free packages but since the archives would be separated
> > anyway, I don't consider this as a big problem.
>
>
Le ven 12/03/2004 à 08:19, Mikko Moilanen a écrit :
> Declare it as nonfree and I will quit immediatly using Debian, and I
> will remove Debian from my relatives and friends too. If A -> B.
So what? If you are not able to understand what "Free software" means,
maybe you don't want to use Debian. T
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 01:28:46 -0500
From: Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Well, for some values of "actually free", anyway.
Is it too much if somebody says "Please let others know that I did
wrote this manual? Also, please don't let them change my personal
opinions about X, Y and
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 01:28:46AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 05:43:17PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > The "concession" you seem to have forgotten is that main is actually
> > free of partially free software, no matter how necessary, useful, or
> > close to being fre
Bonjour,
Ce message est envoyé automatiquement suite au mail que vous avez
adressé au service Facturation de FreeTelecom
"information".
Vous n'avez pas besoin de répondre à ce message maintenant.
Nous avons attribué le numéro d'identification [freetelecom.fr #1698607]
à votre dem
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > requires work and copying the non-free bugs over as well, and you'd
> > lose the ability to reassign bugs from and to free packages to and
> > from non-free packages but since the archives would be separated
> > anyway, I don't consider this as a big problem.
>
>
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 00:33:37 +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On 2004-03-11 19:20:41 + Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> non-free.org is vapourware, and god know what standards of quality
>> it shall have; Debian does have a certain reputation for quality
>> that pure
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 19:15:02 +, Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I think the Technical Committee is mostly not working because of its
> current members; this is related to the structure of the Technical
> Committee and the way members are appointed.
I see. As a tech ctte
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 05:43:17PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> The "concession" you seem to have forgotten is that main is actually
> free of partially free software, no matter how necessary, useful, or
> close to being free it was at the time.
Well, for some values of "actually free", anyway.
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 01:28:46 -0500
From: Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Well, for some values of "actually free", anyway.
Is it too much if somebody says "Please let others know that I did
wrote this manual? Also, please don't let them change my personal
opinions about X, Y and
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 01:28:46AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 05:43:17PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > The "concession" you seem to have forgotten is that main is actually
> > free of partially free software, no matter how necessary, useful, or
> > close to being fre
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 06:25:47PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Ron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-11 15:24]:
> > My concern is that we find a DPL who is *honest* and *enthusiastic*
> > about the future they see for the project and who is prepared to
> > share that vision unabashedly with anyon
83 matches
Mail list logo
