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

Re: Proposed General Resolution : IRC as a Debian communication channel

On Tue, Nov 06, 2001 at 08:57:57AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > I assert that you are a gerbil.
> > By your logic it is now your responsibility to demonstrate that you
> > are not.
> Gerbils don't write on public mailing lists. :)

That's clearly false: you're a gerbil, and you're writing on a public
mailing list.

> Anyway what I meant is that i don't need to prove that #debian-devel
> is debian related and that it can be made official. If you can prove the
> contrary well, let's prove it and I'll see if someone convinced me of
> it.

The burden of proof is always on the person making a positive
claim. "Prove that he's never read this book", versus "Prove that he
has read this book", eg.

> So, I'll just stop here trying to prove that #debian-devel should be
> kind of official debian channel. I made my point I think. 

You've claimed that it *can* be official, and you've claimed that it
effectively *is* official. I don't think you've even given any indication
what the difference between it being "official" and "unofficial" would be,
let alone why anyone would think one possibility is better than the other.

> I believe that it is large enough and that we have enough people in that
> channel who are in charge of many *important* responsibilities in Debian
> (listmaster, ftpmaster, debian-admin, release manager, webmaster, dpkg
> maintainers, X maintainer, many other maintainers, ...).

If you want to reliably contact any of those people, you email
them. That's the official way of contacting them. Unofficially, you might
get a better result by talking to them on IRC, or by talking to them
in person. The channel could just as easily have been called "#foobar"
and still have the same function. Which is to say, the channel's utility
and effectiveness have nothing to do with its officiality.

> > Or else they are happy in the knowledge that this proposal is
> > irrelevant and do not waste their time in responding to it.
> They could at least explain that if they believe that it's the case. 

So could you. Seriously. Start again, from first principles, and try to
explain what you're on about.

> Or
> else they are voluntarily letting other people wasting their time. Which
> isn't really nice ...

Pfft. Other people can do whatever the hell they like with their time. It
ain't my job to force them to do something useful and spiritually


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

 "Security here. Yes, maam. Yes. Groucho glasses. Yes, we're on it.
   C'mon, guys. Somebody gave an aardvark a nose-cut: somebody who
    can't deal with deconstructionist humor. Code Blue."
		-- Mike Hoye,
		      see http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/armadillos.txt

Attachment: pgpYkapj4B0Sl.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: