Re: irc.debian.org
On Sat, Aug 17, 2002 at 07:07:00PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > That sounds like OPN is turning into a business, not a free community
> > network.
>
> OPN (the network) != PDPC (the non-profit corporation) [and Josip is
> fully aware of this, having been told numerous times when he's tried
> to say this in the past].
Sorry, I'm not good with these naming issues. And it seems that
like SPI was =~ Debian at start, so is PDPC =~ OPN.
> Also, what exactly is wrong with businesses? [See below]
Nothing in general, but in this context, doing things like a business would
set a precedent.
> As others have noted, Josip is involved with OFTC, so take this
> opinion with all due scepticism.
As I myself have noted, that is.
I'm basically only involved with OFTC because they took my server offer
faster than OPN, anyway. But yeah, take everything you read with a grain of
salt.
> Aside from the fact that OFTC are not currently sending fundraising
> messages to their users, I can see no appreciable differences in their
> constitution.
OPN doesn't have a constitution, though.
> [Side note: be wary of the OFTC web pages. There's plenty more
> bullshit on them, read them with the scepticism that everything on the
> web deserves.]
Be explicit, snide comments are boring and pointless.
> > An OPN source that wishes to remain anonymous ;) has told me that lilo
> > would like to keep #debian (and #debian*), so if we showed that we
> > really dislike the fundraising spam, they might stop sending it.
>
> Insert standard rant about abuse of the word "spam".
>From The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing (09 FEB 02) [foldoc]:
spam
1. <messaging> (From Hormel's Spiced Ham, via the Monty Python
"Spam" song) To post irrelevant or inappropriate messages to
one or more {Usenet} {newsgroups}, {mailing lists}, or other
messaging system in deliberate or accidental violation of
{netiquette}.
I don't know why you'd consider it abuse of the meaning, I consider it
standard use.
> > We have successfully worked with OPN for years. Several Debian developers
> > were also OPN admins, and several still are. I would hate to see us depart,
> > but OPN definitely seems to be going into a different direction than
> > we are.
>
> This is just grandstanding. Many resources are provided to Debian by
> commercial organisations - auric and klecker are hosted by visi.net
> and VA (for now) respectively, and I don't see anybody complaining
> that these companies do not share any objectives with Debian.
These commercial organizations don't require us to advertize them or convey
any of their messages to our users. Note even how we don't have a VA logo at
the standard place for sponsor logos on www.d.o. They never even complained
about it :)
> In my opinion, DalNet or WebChat would be better suited to hosting Debian
> than OFTC; they have established complaints procedures and have
> demonstrated in the past that they are capable of running large networks
> in a reasonably stable manner. They are maintained by people with years of
> experience in these matters; WebChat runs the ConferenceRoom server (the
> only commercial ircd) which, I'm not afraid to say, is hugely better than
> the current free versions.
This is an open discussion, so this is definitely an option to consider if
they really are as good as you suggest. Do you have a contact at any of
these, where we could ask if we can point irc.d.o there?
> That said, OPN does not host *any* "official" Debian stuff. #debian is
> run by the network itself; several other channels are run and
> frequented by developers, but so what? The Debian project itself does
> not run any channels there.
No, irc.debian.org points to OPN and #debian on irc.debian.org is the
officially recommended Debian support channel. OPN has always been
acknowledged as our endorsed IRC network and is listed at our partners
web page because of this.
Debian doesn't run any channels -- for crying out loud, that is why OPN is
there!
> So, what should criteria should we have for such DNS names?
The one that we've had so far.
> Should we reserve *.debian.org for official Debian services?
It is already reserved.
> Should we add dozens of aliases for everybody that runs a Debian service?
> [How about {planet,portal}.debian.org CNAME debianplanet.org?]
> Should we pick some services based on technical or political merits?
> Should we pick services based on the number of Debian members which can be
> found there? [This may include your local pub. It's about as relevant to
> the project as any other services.]
These questions have very little to do with the explicit issue at hand.
> Note that I do not currently have the answers to any of these
> questions. I object to any action until we have answered them.
I object to sophistry, but hey... :>
--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.
Reply to: