On 08/02/2012 12:18, David Chisnall wrote:
> Thank you for your thoughtful reply,
You too ... I let some time go by to see what others had to say. I think
it's disappointing that more people aren't concerned about this issue.
> On 2 Aug 2012, at 19:33, Doug Barton wrote:
>
>> However, my point i
> I suggest the starting point is a webpage with a link to the slides
> being presented and a simple audio stream.
two way, please. i am amazed that ietf had two-way back when it was the
mbone. with multicast actually deployed, now it is one-way.
randy
__
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Julian Elischer wrote:
>> On 8/2/12 9:53 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
>>>
>>> On 08/02/2012 09:44, Garrett Cooper wrote:
The "Watson/Losh connection" worked really well in BSDCan 2010 :).
>>>
>>> I wasn't g
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Julian Elischer wrote:
> On 8/2/12 9:53 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
>>
>> On 08/02/2012 09:44, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>>>
>>> The "Watson/Losh connection" worked really well in BSDCan 2010 :).
>>
>> I wasn't going to mention that, since I didn't want to tell tales out of
On 8/2/12 9:53 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
On 08/02/2012 09:44, Garrett Cooper wrote:
The "Watson/Losh connection" worked really well in BSDCan 2010 :).
I wasn't going to mention that, since I didn't want to tell tales out of
school. But the fact that remote participation actually was provided for
"
Thank you for your thoughtful reply,
On 2 Aug 2012, at 19:33, Doug Barton wrote:
> However, my point is that in spite of the fact that it's non-trivial,
> the mindset on this topic needs to change if the dev summits are going
> to continue to be significant focii of both work being done and
> dec
On 08/02/2012 11:12, David Chisnall wrote:
> FreeBSD is a volunteer project.
Yeah, I get that. I've been around quite a bit longer than you have, in
case you didn't notice. :)
I understand what you're saying, it's going to take work to change this
mindset, and to provide these resources. If you r
On 2 Aug 2012, at 18:47, Doug Barton wrote:
> Cheap copout. And quite sad, especially coming from a newly elected core
> team member.
FreeBSD is a volunteer project. Our DevSummits are not run by a commercial
organisation, they are run by volunteers. I am not being paid to organise the
Cambri
On 08/02/2012 05:39, John Baldwin wrote:
> I find this a bit ironic from you given that I've met you in person at
> USENIX ATC which is an order of magnitude more expensive than BSDCan (and
> in fact, one of the reasons the US-based BSDCon died and was effectively
> supplanted by BSDCan was that BS
On 08/02/2012 10:40, Warner Losh wrote:
> One thing to remember about the IETF. There's many vendors that devote
> significant resources to the IETF. While I was at Cisco, for example, I know
> that we provided audio and video bridges to IEFT meetings to facilitate
> remote attendance at the m
On 08/02/2012 10:37, David Chisnall wrote:
>
> Thank you for volunteering to organise this. It's good to see people with
> both the motivation and experience required to do something well actively
> contributing to the project.
Cheap copout. And quite sad, especially coming from a newly elected
On Thursday, August 02, 2012 12:30:16 am Doug Barton wrote:
> On 8/1/2012 8:36 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
> > I think this proves the point everybody has been saying: you are being
needlessly contrary and confrontational.
>
> Actually if you take a step back and look at what Arnaud is saying
> object
On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 09:46:42AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
> > but there is
> > certainly no active attempt to exclude people who can't attend.
>
> ... and here is where I need to push back. "No active attempt to exclude
> people" is not the same thing as actively encouraging remote
> participat
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Attilio Rao wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Attilio Rao wrote:
You don't want to work cooperatively.
>
On Aug 2, 2012, at 10:46 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
> Those all sound like nice steps forward, thank you for pointing them
> out. Nothing would make me happier than to be proven wrong in this area.
> What would be nice I think would be if these steps were formalized, and
> shared more openly. Having t
On 2 Aug 2012, at 18:28, Doug Barton wrote:
> Welcome to the 21st Century. :) There are widely available audio and
> video conferencing solutions that easily scale into the thousands of
> users, at minimal cost.
>
> Yes, "It takes effort." I get that. I've been part of the effort to
> provide rem
On 08/02/2012 10:34, Doug Barton wrote:
> BTW, for those who'd like to get a flavor of what the IETF model looks
> like, the Vancouver meeting is in process now:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/84/agenda.html
>
> Feel free to join in as a lurker.
Sorry, this agenda makes it easier to se
BTW, for those who'd like to get a flavor of what the IETF model looks
like, the Vancouver meeting is in process now:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/84/agenda.html
Feel free to join in as a lurker.
--
I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do
something.
On 08/02/2012 10:13, David Chisnall wrote:
> On 2 Aug 2012, at 17:46, Doug Barton wrote:
>
>> Well that's a start. :) And where was this availability announced?
>> If I missed it, that's on me. But providing remote access that you
>> don't tell people about isn't really any better than not providi
On 2 Aug 2012, at 17:46, Doug Barton wrote:
> Well that's a start. :) And where was this availability announced? If I
> missed it, that's on me. But providing remote access that you don't tell
> people about isn't really any better than not providing it at all.
It's not widely advertised, because
On 08/02/2012 09:44, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>
> The "Watson/Losh connection" worked really well in BSDCan 2010 :).
I wasn't going to mention that, since I didn't want to tell tales out of
school. But the fact that remote participation actually was provided for
"the right people," even though I was
On 08/02/2012 05:54, David Chisnall wrote:
> On 2 Aug 2012, at 05:30, Doug Barton wrote:
>
>> I used to ask the PTB to provide *some* form of remote
>> participation for even a fraction of the events at the dev summit.
>> I don't bother asking anymore because year after year my requests
>> were me
On Aug 2, 2012, at 9:20 AM, Scott Long wrote:
>
> On Aug 2, 2012, at 12:23 AM, Kevin Oberman wrote:
>
>> Doug makes some good points.
>
> No, he doesn't. He and Arnould being argumentative and accusatory where none
> of that is warranted.
>
> I used to run the devsummits, and we did tele-co
On Aug 2, 2012, at 12:23 AM, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> Doug makes some good points.
No, he doesn't. He and Arnould being argumentative and accusatory where none
of that is warranted.
I used to run the devsummits, and we did tele-conference lines for remote
people to participate. After I stepp
On 08/02/2012 09:20, Scott Long wrote:
>
> On Aug 2, 2012, at 12:23 AM, Kevin Oberman
> wrote:
>
>> Doug makes some good points.
>
> No, he doesn't.
Yes I do! (So there)
> He and Arnould being argumentative and accusatory
> where none of that is warranted.
>
> I used to run the devsummits,
On 2 Aug 2012, at 05:30, Doug Barton wrote:
> I used to ask the PTB to provide *some* form of remote participation for
> even a fraction of the events at the dev summit. I don't bother asking
> anymore because year after year my requests were met with any of:
> indifference, hostility, shrugged sh
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 9:30 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 8/1/2012 8:36 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
>> I think this proves the point everybody has been saying: you are being
>> needlessly contrary and confrontational.
>
> Actually if you take a step back and look at what Arnaud is saying
> objectively,
Yep. In 18+ years of being subscribed to various freebsd
lists, Arnaud has the honor of being only the 2nd person
to earn a killfile entry. He's now sitting next to Jesus
Monroy, Jr.
it is not a proud from you to talk about who you are blocking.
_
On 8/1/2012 8:36 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
> I think this proves the point everybody has been saying: you are being
> needlessly contrary and confrontational.
Actually if you take a step back and look at what Arnaud is saying
objectively, he's right. If anyone can attend the meeting by simply
gettin
On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 09:36:26PM -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
>
> I think this proves the point everybody has been saying: you
> are being needlessly contrary and confrontational.
>
Yep. In 18+ years of being subscribed to various freebsd
lists, Arnaud has the honor of being only the 2nd person
On Aug 1, 2012, at 9:28 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 7:28 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
>>
>> On Aug 1, 2012, at 3:39 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
Any interested party is very welcome to approach
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 7:28 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
>
> On Aug 1, 2012, at 3:39 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>>> Any interested party is very welcome to approach a developer and get
>>> added to the developer summits. Plenty of t
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>> Any interested party is very welcome to approach a developer and get
>> added to the developer summits. Plenty of the people at the most
>> recent developer summit weren't @freeb
On Aug 1, 2012, at 3:39 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>> Any interested party is very welcome to approach a developer and get
>> added to the developer summits. Plenty of the people at the most
>> recent developer summit weren't @freebsd
On 8/1/12 12:45 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Attilio Rao wrote:
As for the mbuf meeting, all I can find from it online is:
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch/2012-June/012629.html
actually nothing has happenned on this yet that I know of, which i
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> Any interested party is very welcome to approach a developer and get
> added to the developer summits. Plenty of the people at the most
> recent developer summit weren't @freebsd.org committers - we had
> plenty of representation from comp
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Attilio Rao wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Arnaud Lacombe
> wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Attilio Rao
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> You don't want to work cooperativ
On 8/1/12, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Attilio Rao wrote:
[ trimm ]
>> You are forgetting one specific detail: you can always review a work
>> *after* it entered the tree. This is something you would never do, but
>> sometimes, when poor quality code is commi
Any interested party is very welcome to approach a developer and get
added to the developer summits. Plenty of the people at the most
recent developer summit weren't @freebsd.org committers - we had
plenty of representation from companies using FreeBSD.
If you want to participate, just ask a frien
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 15:45:35 -0400
From: Arnaud Lacombe
One obvious problem in FreeBSD is that committers are prosecutor,
judge and jury altogether.
As a user, I accept this.
I think if you can make a meaningful
contribution to FreeBSD developments
in the desig
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Attilio Rao wrote:
> On 8/1/12, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Attilio Rao wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Arnaud Lacombe
>>> wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Attilio Rao
wrote:
On 8/1/12, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Attilio Rao wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Arnaud Lacombe
>> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Attilio Rao
>>> wrote:
You don't want to work cooperatively.
>>> Why is it t
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Attilio Rao wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Attilio Rao wrote:
>>>
>>> You don't want to work cooperatively.
>>>
>> Why is it that mbuf's refactoring consultation is being held in
>
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Attilio Rao wrote:
>>
>> You don't want to work cooperatively.
>>
> Why is it that mbuf's refactoring consultation is being held in
> internal, private, committers-and-invite-only-restricted meeting a
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Attilio Rao wrote:
>
> You don't want to work cooperatively.
>
Why is it that mbuf's refactoring consultation is being held in
internal, private, committers-and-invite-only-restricted meeting at
BSDCan ?
Why is it that so much review and discussion on changes
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 8:47 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
>>
>> On Jul 31, 2012, at 9:20 AM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 11:51 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
[...] We lack that right now, which is why y
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
>
> On Jul 31, 2012, at 9:20 AM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 11:51 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
>>> [...] We lack that right now, which is why you're trying to shoe-horn the
>>> FDT connections into a newbus wor
On Jul 31, 2012, at 9:20 AM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 11:51 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
>> [...] We lack that right now, which is why you're trying to shoe-horn the
>> FDT connections into a newbus world and complaining that everything sucks
>> because it is a poor f
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 11:51 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
> [...] We lack that right now, which is why you're trying to shoe-horn the FDT
> connections into a newbus world and complaining that everything sucks because
> it is a poor fit. I'd suggest that different mechanisms are necessary.
>
I'
On Jul 30, 2012, at 8:30 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 5:06 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
>> On Tuesday, July 17, 2012 2:03:14 am Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 1:
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 5:06 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 17, 2012 2:03:14 am Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 1:20 AM, Warner Losh wrote:
>> >> [..]
>> >> Honestly, though, I t
On Mon, 2012-07-30 at 17:06 -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 17, 2012 2:03:14 am Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 1:20 AM, Warner Losh wrote:
> > >> [..]
> > >> Honestly, though
On Tuesday, July 17, 2012 2:03:14 am Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 1:20 AM, Warner Losh wrote:
> >> [..]
> >> Honestly, though, I think you'll be more pissed when you find out that
the N:1 interface
Hi,
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 1:20 AM, Warner Losh wrote:
>> [..]
>> Honestly, though, I think you'll be more pissed when you find out that the
>> N:1 interface that you want is being done in the wrong domain. But I've
>> been wro
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 1:20 AM, Warner Losh wrote:
> [..]
> Honestly, though, I think you'll be more pissed when you find out that the
> N:1 interface that you want is being done in the wrong domain. But I've been
> wrong before and look forward to seeing your replacement.
>
I will just p
On Jul 12, 2012, at 6:01 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
> New-bus is certainly not the only way to organize a device hierarchy and is
> not perfect, but in your case I suggest you tone down your language until you
> have enough information to develop an informed opinion.
It is also not the only way to
On Thursday, July 12, 2012 3:01:36 am Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 1:20 AM, Warner Losh wrote:
> > I'm sorry you feel that way.
> >
> > Honestly, though, I think you'll be more pissed when you find out that the
N:1 interface that you want is being done in the wrong dom
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 1:20 AM, Warner Losh wrote:
> I'm sorry you feel that way.
>
> Honestly, though, I think you'll be more pissed when you find out that the
> N:1 interface that you want is being done in the wrong domain. But I've been
> wrong before and look forward to seeing your re
On Jul 11, 2012, at 9:47 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 1:17 AM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 12:37 AM, Warner Losh wrote:
>>>
>>> On Jul 8, 2012, at 9:46 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>>>
On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 11:31 PM, Warner Losh
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 11:27 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
> Also, I think we should do this in general. We already have one example (e.g.
> ACPI IVARs start at 100 so that things like the ACPI PCI bus driver can
> provide both ACPI and PCI IVARs to child devices). I think we should assign
> each
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 1:17 AM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 12:37 AM, Warner Losh wrote:
>>
>> On Jul 8, 2012, at 9:46 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 11:31 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
On Jul 8, 2012, at 9:26 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
On Monday, July 09, 2012 12:39:03 am Warner Losh wrote:
>
> On Jul 8, 2012, at 9:59 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 10:07 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
> >>
> >> On Jul 8, 2012, at 7:22 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> >>> Ok, yet another Newbus' limitation. Assuming a d
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 12:37 AM, Warner Losh wrote:
>
> On Jul 8, 2012, at 9:46 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 11:31 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
>>>
>>> On Jul 8, 2012, at 9:26 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>>>
Hi,
On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 10:07 PM, Warner Losh wr
On Jul 8, 2012, at 9:59 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 10:07 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
>>
>> On Jul 8, 2012, at 7:22 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>>> Ok, yet another Newbus' limitation. Assuming a device exports more
>>> than one interface, and one of its child has need t
On Jul 8, 2012, at 9:46 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 11:31 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
>>
>> On Jul 8, 2012, at 9:26 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 10:07 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
On Jul 8, 2012, at 7:22 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 10:07 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
>
> On Jul 8, 2012, at 7:22 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>> Ok, yet another Newbus' limitation. Assuming a device exports more
>> than one interface, and one of its child has need to use more than one
>> interface, each interfaces cannot regist
On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 11:31 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
>
> On Jul 8, 2012, at 9:26 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 10:07 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
>>>
>>> On Jul 8, 2012, at 7:22 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
Ok, yet another Newbus' limitation. Assuming a device exports
On Jul 8, 2012, at 9:26 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 10:07 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
>>
>> On Jul 8, 2012, at 7:22 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>>> Ok, yet another Newbus' limitation. Assuming a device exports more
>>> than one interface, and one of its child has need t
Hi,
On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 10:07 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
>
> On Jul 8, 2012, at 7:22 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>> Ok, yet another Newbus' limitation. Assuming a device exports more
>> than one interface, and one of its child has need to use more than one
>> interface, each interfaces cannot regist
On Jul 8, 2012, at 7:22 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> Ok, yet another Newbus' limitation. Assuming a device exports more
> than one interface, and one of its child has need to use more than one
> interface, each interfaces cannot register, concurrently, its own
> ivar. While I try to always have a s
Hi folks,
Ok, yet another Newbus' limitation. Assuming a device exports more
than one interface, and one of its child has need to use more than one
interface, each interfaces cannot register, concurrently, its own
ivar. While I try to always have a single child per
interface/resource, I need to ke
71 matches
Mail list logo
