Le Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 05:44:55PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
>
> Internally, we would need to adjust, but I'm quite sure that we would
> manage. Actually, the lack of a DPL might make everybody feel more
> enabled/empowered to solve problems that are usually deferred to the
> DPL, which cou
Hi Ana!
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:21:20AM +0100, Ana Guerrero Lopez wrote:
> DebConf is one of the biggest expenses of Debian, every year we look
> for sponsorship and we had (and have) sponsors who were sponsoring
> DebConf as a way of giving their "annual donation" to Debian and
> not necessari
Hi Paul,
On 22/03/14 at 14:23 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> Please imagine a Debian without the DPL position. How would it be
> better, how would it be worse, how would things work differently,
> would it be desirable?
Someone said that Debian is an extremely functional anarchic project.
I love that
Hi Steve,
On 25/03/14 at 00:57 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> (To Lucas) Why should Debian need to hold a reserve with its TOs to fully
> fund a DebConf for which fundraising has failed? I believe the operating
> principle is that the DebConf organization should never spend money that it
> doesn'
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 02:23:30PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> Please imagine a Debian without the DPL position. How would it be
> better, how would it be worse, how would things work differently,
> would it be desirable?
>
Hi Paul,
I think there's a couple of aspects to this, one from an external
Stefano Zacchiroli writes:
> That's a very interesting viewpoint for me, because it's kinda dual to
> mine. I understand what you're saying and it has its own merits. But
> OTOH I see another part of our *current* stance as non honest, the part
> where we say that contrib and non-free are not par
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 09:32:26AM +0100, Frank Lin PIAT wrote:
>On Tue, 2014-03-25 at 15:29 +0900, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>> Because as long as we document it, it's very hard to claim that
>> "non-free" is not part of Debian, when you could just add it as a
>> keyword side-by-side with "main" i
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:55:56PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I think we should continue to maintain contrib and non-free as part of the
> Debian project because, by doing so, we enable people to use more free
> software than they otherwise would be able to do. So I'm not particularly
> upset by
On Tue, 2014-03-25 at 15:29 +0900, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Because as long as we document it, it's very hard to claim that
> "non-free" is not part of Debian, when you could just add it as a
> keyword side-by-side with "main" in your sources.list.
The firmware have been moved from main to non-
Hi Lucas,
Since I am one of the local organizers this year for DebConf, which is
Debian's single largest annual expense; and in light of the ongoing
discussion you and I are having about DebConf budgeting; it should be no
surprise that I have opinions on the question of Debian asset management.
;)
This one time, at band camp, Paul Wise said:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:51 PM, Neil McGovern wrote:
> > I don't think that splitting this up helps our users. Using debian.org
> > provides a trusted distribution mechanism. I think it's better that
> > people get trusted non-free packages from us,
11 matches
Mail list logo
