Re: Proposed General Resolution : IRC as a Debian communication channel
>>"Raphael" == Raphael Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org> writes:
Raphael> Le Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 09:43:25PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava écrivait:
>> I don't believe this. The only reason you brought this GR
>> forth is because you had problems with a non debian controlled IRC
>> channel operator? You had the gall to have us go through this whole
Raphael> Manoj, I really don't like the tone of your responses and
Raphael> the fact that they voluntarily focuses on minor points
Raphael> without trying to see the whole picture.
On the contrary. It seems to me that the big picture is being
obfuscated by minutae -- and the big picure is that you are annoyed
at the actions of an OPN ChanOP, and are trying to somehow change his
behaviour with this GR.
Raphael> You may think that it is unrelated to Debian. But I don't think so.
Fine. Make your case -- you are saying that yet another of a
myriad of discussion forum possibilities, not run by the debian
project, somehow has special status and must need an unenfordeable
policy foisted on it because, in some obscure way, even though Debian
is not incharge, does not control the channel or the network, it some
how has been appropriated by us?
Raphael> You don't think that it's official. I think it SHOULD BE
Raphael> because this channel has legitimacy for being such a
Raphael> channel.
Umm. We do not own the channel, or control it. All developers
can not participate on it. It should not be used for work where input
from the developer body is desired.
Exactly what confers more legitimacy to it that the Debian
mailing list run at a LUG?
Raphael> I think that we can officialize the existence of this IRC
Raphael> channel since its owner is an ex-DPL
He did not give up all his rights when he became DPL, did he?
Hey, wichert, what else do you won that we can appropriate?
Raphael> and that he probably don't have a problem with debian people
Raphael> using the channel in a way that is consistent with the
Raphael> current (and past) use of the channel.
*Probably*? Should this not have been clarified before we went
into a GR?
Raphael> Now read again my GR and see that it's not an anti-Overfiend GR. It's
Raphael> trying to destroy the roots of the problem that has lead us to this
Raphael> situation.
Except you have not established whether this is a valid
process, whether it shall work, whether we have jurisdiction, and
whether we actually need more bureaucratic rules.
Raphael> Now, why did I propose such a compromise ? Because I think
Raphael> that having the channel operators agree on the subject is
Raphael> enough to officialize it without going through a vote.
Why would you think that a chanop on a third party agreeing to
something makes it an official debian policy?
manoj
--
You will be traveling and coming into a fortune.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: