Re: Aliases for /dev/null: Clarification about krooger's platform

Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Anthony Towns writes: > > > This is not the case; in most cases the people complaining about > > ifupdown have made it very clear they're not interested in > > co-maintenance. > > I know one person who is interested in co-maintenance. It doesn'

Re: Aliases for /dev/null: Clarification about krooger's platform

Anthony Towns writes: > Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > > Anthony Towns writes: > >>This is not the case; in most cases the people complaining about > >>ifupdown have made it very clear they're not interested in > >>co-maintenance. > > I know one person who is interested in co-maintenance. > > Wel

Re: Aliases for /dev/null: Clarification about krooger's platform

Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Anthony Towns writes: This is not the case; in most cases the people complaining about ifupdown have made it very clear they're not interested in co-maintenance. I know one person who is interested in co-maintenance. Well, from your other mail it looks like you're more i

Re: Aliases for /dev/null: Clarification about krooger's platform

Anthony Towns writes: > This is not the case; in most cases the people complaining about > ifupdown have made it very clear they're not interested in > co-maintenance. I know one person who is interested in co-maintenance. It doesn't really matter what "in most cases" means, what matters is whe

Re: Aliases for /dev/null: Clarification about krooger's platform

Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Anthony is the "maintainer" of this package, and has refused either to allow adoption or a co-maintainer arrangement with interested partes. This is not the case; in most cases the people complaining about ifupdown have made it very clear they're not interested in co-mai

Re: Aliases for /dev/null: Clarification about krooger's platform

On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 03:26:23PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > My question is: when there is a technical issue, but one developer > refuses to discuss it with tech-ctte or anyone else, can tech-ctte get > involved? Yes. > It does, but I recall in the past being told that tech-ctte doesn

Re: Aliases for /dev/null: Clarification about krooger's platform

Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Beyond that... since you've not actually stated any technical issues, > and since the maintainer of that package is one of the DPL candidates, I > think you should make an effort to be clear about what you're saying here. This is a different question, and

Re: Aliases for /dev/null: Clarification about krooger's platform

Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > As described, this is an administrative issue, rather than a technical > issue. Yes, that's correct. At present there is no reason for tech-ctte to be involved. My example was poorly chosen. > Beyond that... since you've not actually stated any technic

Re: Aliases for /dev/null: Clarification about krooger's platform

> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > What work? On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 02:46:17PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > I have in mind, for example, the ifupdown script. The maintainer has > not made a maintainer upload for years, and so maintenance of the > package has been proceding by

Re: Aliases for /dev/null: Clarification about krooger's platform

Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > What work? > > A developer who never acts would have no work to review. The technical > committee would thus never have any reason to override any decisions > this developer made -- because there would be no such decisions. I have in mind, for example,

Re: Aliases for /dev/null: Clarification about krooger's platform

> > How can the tech-ctte override a developer by not acting? On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 10:55:21AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > No, the question is whether a developer (by never acting) can avoid > tech-ctte review of his work. What work? A developer who never acts would have no work to rev

Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > There's a difference between a topic as a whole, and a sub-thread which > > does not appear to be going anywhere useful. On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:09:07AM +, MJ Ray wrote: > Sure. I have asked the questions on-topic here (summarised at > http://deb

Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Sure. I have asked the questions on-topic here (summarised at > > http://debian.edv-bus.at/vote-2005/communication-exclusion.html > > http://debian.edv-bus.at/vote-2005/communication-debian-women.html ) > > and

Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Sure. I have asked the questions on-topic here (summarised at > http://debian.edv-bus.at/vote-2005/communication-exclusion.html > http://debian.edv-bus.at/vote-2005/communication-debian-women.html ) > and hope candidates will answer. Both of those pages are un

Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There's a difference between a topic as a whole, and a sub-thread which > does not appear to be going anywhere useful. Sure. I have asked the questions on-topic here (summarised at http://debian.edv-bus.at/vote-2005/communication-exclusion.html http://debia

Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [Note: I originally posted this to another list -- thinking this whole > > debian-women thread was off topic for debian-vote. M.J. Ray > > indicated only that he thinks debian-vote is the appropriate list, so > > I'm reposting it here, with minor edi

Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [Note: I originally posted this to another list -- thinking this whole > debian-women thread was off topic for debian-vote. M.J. Ray > indicated only that he thinks debian-vote is the appropriate list, so > I'm reposting it here, with minor edits.] What

Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Right, you're still avoiding the questions and following your own > agenda on some misunderstood point. I'm not keen on any further > off-topic, so I just ask you to reread my messages and think > whether you read the "offensive" messages for the point I made.

Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > to discrimination, but I was told that wasn't a list purpose: > > > > are you saying it is? Why do you know better than others? > > I notice that you do not directly answer any question. > I am saying tha di

Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

[Note: I originally posted this to another list -- thinking this whole debian-women thread was off topic for debian-vote. M.J. Ray indicated only that he thinks debian-vote is the appropriate list, so I'm reposting it here, with minor edits.] Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > And, per

Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > If you think this is *wrong*, then why? Because you have a right to > > > > be responded to no matter what you say, even when you are hostile to > > > > the purposes the list was created for? > > > I'm not hostile to balancing debian's composition. I'm

Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [...] > > Not in that sense, but that sense doesn't follow directly from > > the word "policy". I'd expect someone consistently ignoring it > > to be corrected, but ICBW. > It's not policy regardless. It's a recomm

Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The idea to ignore trolls is hardly new, or unusual. Nor is it a > > "policy", in the sense that anyone is ordered to ignore them under > > pain of expulsion. [...] > > Not in that sense, but that sense doesn'

Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The idea to ignore trolls is hardly new, or unusual. Nor is it a > "policy", in the sense that anyone is ordered to ignore them under > pain of expulsion. [...] Not in that sense, but that sense doesn't follow directly from the word "policy". I'd ex

Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The debian-women list FAQ is on http://women.alioth.debian.org/faqs/ > and the odd policy is under "Miscellaneous" thus: > >Just like every other online community, there will probably >be the occasional troll. Do not make the mistake of treating >t

Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > See top and tail of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > (also at http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2005/03/msg00471.html ) > > which is as explicit as it will get for now. Not enough time. > Nothing in there is a FAQ, to

Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So then what is your complaint about the "debate-killing silence > > policy"? Maybe you should be more explicit. > > See top and tail of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > (also at http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2005

Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So then what is your complaint about the "debate-killing silence > policy"? Maybe you should be more explicit. See top and tail of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (also at http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2005/03/msg00471.html ) which is as explicit as it w

Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > For example, "Searching for Safety Online" (which recommends > > > "pro-active interventions") has been used to justify the > > > debate-killing silence policy in the Li

Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > For example, "Searching for Safety Online" (which recommends > > "pro-active interventions") has been used to justify the > > debate-killing silence policy in the List FAQ, which seems just > > plain broken. > W

Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > For example, "Searching for Safety Online" (which recommends > "pro-active interventions") has been used to justify the > debate-killing silence policy in the List FAQ, which seems just > plain broken. Wait, you think that people have an obligation to reply to

Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

Erinn Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > could get a voice within the debian-women culture. Probably > > a lot of the time that will be directing to FAQs or codes, > > but there's always something not covered there. Using a > > smaller number of people makes it easier to spot new conduct > > FAQs

Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

* MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005:03:10 14:01 +]: > I was pretty sure I put at least one suggestion through a bug > tracker. My memory is not brilliant. Others were almost all > off-list because of the atmosphere, so can't be shown in public > and that means some here wouldn't believe it. :-/

Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

Erinn Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005:03:10 10:33 +]:=20 > > Some of my suggestions have been accepted previously. Damned > > if I can find the right bug tracker entries for them, though. > Yeah, a bug tracker might be nice, but it seems a bit overboard [..

Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

* MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005:03:10 10:33 +]: > Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 02:36:49AM +, MJ Ray wrote: > > > If it's fair to call one-sided example genders on www.debian as > > > a bug, let's call it a bug where it happens across all debian.

Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 02:36:49AM +, MJ Ray wrote: > > If it's fair to call one-sided example genders on www.debian as > > a bug, let's call it a bug where it happens across all debian. > That's a fair call. So are you going to follow d-women's exam

Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I think you're confusing that project with a web page. [...] > > Not really. The project maintains the web page. The project > has a mailing list. On both of these and some others, when a > choice is made on how to include or exclude from something, > sex is

Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > linuxchix specifically exclude men from some meetings and > facilities. Absence of a similar group was a feature. It's a > shame that things deteriorated to the point one was created. We don't have a group that excludes men from its meetings and facilities.

Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 02:36:49AM +, MJ Ray wrote: > If it's fair to call one-sided example genders on www.debian as > a bug, let's call it a bug where it happens across all debian. That's a fair call. So are you going to follow d-women's example, get involved in the project you feel is a pr

Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

also sprach Amaya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.03.09.2107 +0100]: > > Why is it called debian-women? > > Because the effort, the project, is aimed at increasing the > involvement of women in Debian. So debian-women as a name made > perfect sense :) I had a deeper question in mind, but failed to be

Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And, personally, I really don't see the relevance in the context of > this web page. If you're tired, and want to just get stuff done, don't > you have your own web pages? [...] A variation on the "you can discriminate in your own space" suggestion. Not a

Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

> Amaya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > > [...] As there's is absolutely no seggregation in the debian-women > > environment, men can benefit, and I'm sure *do* benefit, from this > > wellcoming climate too. On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 11:52:50PM +, MJ Ray wrote: > Is a bus with a whites-only

Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

The secret is out. A new cabal is trying to cleanse Debian of women through pure irritation and MJ is in on the action. Gentlemen, steel yourselves for a future consisting entirely of endless pedantic hair-splitting over policy, very little actual technical work and homoerotic all-male skinny di

Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

Amaya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > When I first became a developer, I found debian-devel frightening, > hostile and very intimidating, I must admit this was not so because of > gender issues. [...] In fact, I suspect the correlation is not very strong. > [...] more of a personal issue "ok,

Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 05:55:48PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.03.06.0242 +0100]: > > But debian-women contributors include both men and women. > > Why is it called debian-women? One of the benefits of starting a project is that you ge

Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > also sprach Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.03.06.0242 +0100]: > > But debian-women contributors include both men and women. > > Why is it called debian-women? Aren't there also men, some shy, some > merely put off by the roughness of th

Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

Em Qua, 2005-03-09 às 17:07, Amaya escreveu: > When I first became a developer, I found debian-devel frightening, > hostile and very intimidating, I must admit this was not so because of > gender issues. I would like to remember everybody the mencal flamewar (one of the most stupid flamewars I hav

Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

Hi Martin! martin f krafft wrote: > Why is it called debian-women? Because the effort, the project, is aimed at increasing the involvement of women in Debian. So debian-women as a name made perfect sense :) > Aren't there also men, some shy, some merely put off by the roughness > of this pro

Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

also sprach Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.03.06.0242 +0100]: > But debian-women contributors include both men and women. Why is it called debian-women? Aren't there also men, some shy, some merely put off by the roughness of this project, or many other reasons, who would welcome a

Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

Hi, Ben Burton wrote: > >> I am concerned that a debian-nazi list ... > > This means the argument ends now, right? Given some of the questionable content on the site Jonathan Walther maintains: No. (Godwin's Law isn't invoked if the content it refers to is on-topi

Re: Clarification about krooger's platform

Hi, Kevin B. McCarty wrote: > MJ Ray wrote: > >> Where are these articles posted? As a package sponsor, it could >> be a useful resource for me and my maintainers. I didn't find >> them anywhere obvious on http://www.debian.org/devel/join/ > > [ Locations, mostly on women.alioth.debian.org ] Th

Re: OT: Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about ?krooger's platform

Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sure, and the obituaries are a discrimination on the basis of death. Not a type of descrimination that I object to, as I could easily die if I wanted to. ($DEITY knows, I spend enough time keeping alive.) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] wi

Re: OT: Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about ?krooger's platform

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >No, I think you see it but you disagree whether the directory >of women or the current list charter is discriminating on the >basis of sex, and the severity or remedies of past incidents. Sure, and the obituaries are a discrimination on the basis of death. -- ciao, Marc

Re: OT: Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 02:30:07AM +, MJ Ray wrote: > No, I think you see it but you disagree whether the directory > of women or the current list charter is discriminating on the > basis of sex, and the severity or remedies of past incidents. There's pages in the mail archives where only peop

Re: OT: Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > They're trying to find out why women aren't as actively involved in > Debian as are men, so that they can remedy any problems, should those > arise. I support them doing that. > In doing so, it isn't unreasonable to see what women currently > inv

Re: Red-tops, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

On Sat, Mar 05, 2005 at 12:21:05PM +, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Joel Aelwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Oooh! So the fact that I've shown up in it a few times means I'm part of > > the Cabal now? > > No, not by a large margin. I have a cabalometric experiment at >

Re: Aliases for /dev/null: Clarification about krooger's platform

Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > To: debian-vote@lists.debian.org > > This is why I suspect ftpmaster is a particular instance of some > > more general problem. At the moment, is there a constititional > > loophole that one can avoid tech-ctte overruling one (the only > > time complaints

Re: Aliases for /dev/null: Clarification about krooger's platform

To: debian-vote@lists.debian.org > This is why I suspect ftpmaster is a particular instance of some > more general problem. At the moment, is there a constititional > loophole that one can avoid tech-ctte overruling one (the only > time complaints are mentioned) by never acting? I'm having trouble

Re: OT: Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You haven't said anything sexist about it, except that it has a clear > > purpose. > > I have, IMO. I consider discrimination on the basis of sex to be sexism. Except that it doesn't discriminate on the basis

Re: Red-tops, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

I'm very sorry but attempting to measure cabal power by frequency of discussion in public news forums is obviously naive. First and mostly because there is no cabal. On Saturday 05 March 2005 06:21 am, Henning Makholm wrote: > No, not by a large margin. I have a cabalometric experiment at >

Re: Red-tops, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

Andreas Barth wrote: > Actually, if someone thinks something should be in DWN, sending a mail > to [EMAIL PROTECTED] really helps. At least it helped for me everytime I > wanted to > have something covered. I really consider your accusations against DWN > harmful. Not sure why DWN is being discus

Re: Red-tops, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

MJ Ray wrote: > I may do that later, so for future: Does [EMAIL PROTECTED] have an archive? Yes, it's on master:/home/debian/archive/debian-dwn and readable by the Debian (800) group. Regards, Joey -- If nothing changes, everything will remain the same. -- Barne's Law -- To UNSUBSC

Re: Exclusion, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

Op vr, 04-03-2005 te 12:48 +, schreef MJ Ray: > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Nope, it doesn't work that way. The translators come to the d-i and > > translation team and ask what they can do to help get it translated. > > I think this is tied up with the change of installer. It m

Re: OT: Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

Op ma, 07-03-2005 te 02:09 +, schreef MJ Ray: > Arguing in favour of so-called "positive discrimination" is just > another case of ignoring present crimes by past-persecuted people. I cannot agree more with that statement; "positive discrimination" is just discrimination like anything else, an

Re: OT: Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 02:09:26AM +, MJ Ray wrote: > > Arguing in favour of so-called "positive discrimination" is just > > another case of ignoring present crimes by past-persecuted people. > > We have to learn from the past and overcome mistakes, n

Re: OT: Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 02:09:26AM +, MJ Ray wrote: > Ben Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I have, IMO. I consider discrimination on the basis of sex to be sexism. > > i.e., you favour the law of the jungle. Which, may I say, has a fine > > history of maintaining artificial imbalances c

Re: OT: Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

Ben Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I have, IMO. I consider discrimination on the basis of sex to be sexism. > i.e., you favour the law of the jungle. Which, may I say, has a fine > history of maintaining artificial imbalances caused by past injustices. No, I favour stopping discrimination

Re: OT: Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

> > You haven't said anything sexist about it, except that it has a clear > > purpose. > > I have, IMO. I consider discrimination on the basis of sex to be sexism. i.e., you favour the law of the jungle. Which, may I say, has a fine history of maintaining artificial imbalances caused by past in

Re: OT: Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You haven't said anything sexist about it, except that it has a clear > purpose. I have, IMO. I consider discrimination on the basis of sex to be sexism. I've also described an incident of unchallenged racism on the debian-women list. While I believ

Re: OT: Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > No. Some restrictions on topic are reasonable, some are not. > [...] > > Maybe you should ask for debian-misogynists or something. > > I am not a misogynist. I believe sexism cannot cure sexism and I > consid

Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I heard a rumour that krooger did not consult because he is > banned from their IRC and mailing list. All he had to do was mail them directly. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTE

Re: Red-tops, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

Hi, reading some of the replies MJ[0]'s post has received, I feel it's necessary to express my opinion on some of the points. I wasn't going to at first in order to keep the noise down, but IMO some views and opinions expressed by DPL candidates have turned noise into signal. On Fri, Mar 04,

Re: OT: Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > No. Some restrictions on topic are reasonable, some are not. [...] > Maybe you should ask for debian-misogynists or something. I am not a misogynist. I believe sexism cannot cure sexism and I consider the current setup of debian-women sexist beyond

Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > MJ Ray wrote: > >Erinn Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Because you refuse to subscribe to our list or read DWN for ideological > >> reasons. > >I think you'll find many DDs aren't subscribed to your list or reading DWN. > *yawn* And they're also not

Re: Clarification about krooger's platform

On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 08:30:54PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: On Sat, Mar 05, 2005 at 12:34:25PM -0800, Anthony Towns wrote: > Can we _please_ stop refering to people by their nicknames, IRC handles > or whatever it is that you are using? It's bad enough to try and > remember a couple hundred na

Re: Clarification about krooger's platform

On Sat, Mar 05, 2005 at 12:34:25PM -0800, Anthony Towns wrote: > Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: > >On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 10:10:45PM -0500, Erinn Clark wrote: > > > None of the individuals [...] > > Can we _please_ stop refering to people by their nicknames, IRC handles > > or whatever it is that you

Re: OT: Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Once again, your complaint is about a topic restriction, not a > > restriction on who is allowed to address that topic. > > Cool, so declaring all discussions and collaboration involving > women "off-topic" fo

Re: Red-tops, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Yes, it's the message about my first point, where Martin Schulze > told me that in-project communication was never a goal of DWN. > This exchange illustrates my fifth point: you do not know how > DWN actually works and I don't think you can find out reliably.

Re: OT: Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 12:55:49AM +, MJ Ray wrote: > Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > A page about people that only admits contributions from women. > > What's the URL, please? > > http://women.alioth.debian.org/profiles/ I have a pa

Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

MJ Ray wrote: >Erinn Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> * MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005:03:04 14:07 +]:=20 >> > If debian-women are so good at communicating, why don't I see it?=20 >> Because you refuse to subscribe to our list or read DWN for ideological >> reasons. > >I think you'll find

Re: Red-tops, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But one example *cannot* demonstrate your point. [...] I was referring to DWN being one example of communication in debian. > Nor, for that matter, does a Message-ID prove anything. You can't say > or remember what's in that message, can you? Y

Re: OT: Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Once again, your complaint is about a topic restriction, not a > restriction on who is allowed to address that topic. Cool, so declaring all discussions and collaboration involving women "off-topic" for debian-www would be fine with you? -- To UN

Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If you want to prove there is something nefarious going on, you must > *give the evidence*. The burden of proof is on you. I know. I'll prove it to people who will actually fix it. It will not help to publish more info here and will harm helpful p

Re: OT: Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

Ean Schuessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is it possible to just chill out on the chicks? [...] It's just an example of some general problems (and not one I raised). > Would you have a problem with blind Debianers creating such a list? Nazis or > terrorists sure, but ladies!?! [...] For at le

Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > All mail on the debian-women list is public. Not all of their > > > work is archived in public and they explicitly prohibit IRC logs, > > > probably both for good root r

Re: Red-tops, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If you cannot substantiate them publicly, then they are nothing more > > than pissing in the wind. > > Get Message-Id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > that was sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] if it matters that much to you.

Re: OT: Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > A page about people that only admits contributions from women. > > What's the URL, please? > > http://women.alioth.debian.org/profiles/ I believe anyone can *contribut

Re: OT: Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

Is it possible to just chill out on the chicks? Can't the girls brave enough to wade into our computerized backwater have a little something of their own without all this trouble? The very few women in Debian put up a page that lists those women and men aren't listed on it because it is a list

Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > All mail on the debian-women list is public. Not all of their > > work is archived in public and they explicitly prohibit IRC logs, > > probably both for good root reasons IMO. > What is "they"? debian-women co

Re: OT: Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > A page about people that only admits contributions from women. > What's the URL, please? http://women.alioth.debian.org/profiles/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe"

Re: Red-tops, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If you cannot substantiate them publicly, then they are nothing more > than pissing in the wind. Get Message-Id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> that was sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] if it matters that much to you. I don't have a copy here and I've not checked my

Re: Red-tops, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Scripsit MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Interesting, but missing any measure of whether I'm being > > kissed or kicked. > If we are talking about the same publication, then neither. For all > the time I have read DWN, its stories have consisted of neutra

Re: Exclusion, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 12:48:50AM +, MJ Ray wrote: > Is that 65% for the d-i in the next release, or d-i current? That > still leaves a third excluded and d-i is *much* better than most, far > more widely translated more than most of debian. There's a lot of > other things to improve too.

Re: Clarification about krooger's platform

Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 10:10:45PM -0500, Erinn Clark wrote: > None of the individuals [...] Can we _please_ stop refering to people by their nicknames, IRC handles or whatever it is that you are using? It's bad enough to try and remember a couple hundred names, don'

Re: Clarification about krooger's platform

On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 10:10:45PM -0500, Erinn Clark wrote: > None of the individuals [...] Can we _please_ stop refering to people by their nicknames, IRC handles or whatever it is that you are using? It's bad enough to try and remember a couple hundred names, don't make it worse by adding

Re: OT: Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What is a "women-only" web page? > > A page about people that only admits contributions from women. What's the URL, please? > > Where is the list charter for debian-women "women-only"? > > Being about or by

Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > All mail on the debian-women list is public. Not all of their > work is archived in public and they explicitly prohibit IRC logs, > probably both for good root reasons IMO. What is "they"? Not all my work on gnucash is archived in public. Developers are free

Re: Red-tops, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Maybe. Call it revenge if you want, but please consider whether > > > there's truth behind them or how one can tell. > > Your accusations are, as far as I can tell, enti

Re: Red-tops, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

Scripsit MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Interesting, but missing any measure of whether I'm being > kissed or kicked. If we are talking about the same publication, then neither. For all the time I have read DWN, its stories have consisted of neutral references to threads on the mailing lists, with

Re: Red-tops, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

On Sat, Mar 05, 2005 at 01:28:43PM +, MJ Ray wrote: > Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The list shows everybody who has more than 1000 points. You are not > > among them (except if my DWN-parsing script is broken), but MJ himself > > currently has 2661 points and a ranking of #30.

  1   2   >