[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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?

 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: