On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 02:35:11PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 02:41:12PM +0100, Frank K?ster wrote:
> > But may I point you to the fact that Joel just
> > tried to start such a discussion (albeit only in a side note to a side
> > note)? You didn't show that this was irr
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[stuff]
I cannot follow you, sorry. EOT.
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer
On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 02:41:12PM +0100, Frank K?ster wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > All the rational discussion has always been about what constitutes
> > 'hiding',
>
> I have also read discussion about what we promise not to hide (before
> our users, and before fell
Andreas Barth wrote:
>* Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050127 13:55]:
>> All the rational discussion has always been about what constitutes
>> 'hiding', and the rational conclusion has always been the same:
>
>You mean: you never changed your mind? That's probably true, but that
>doesn't make
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> All the rational discussion has always been about what constitutes
> 'hiding',
I have also read discussion about what we promise not to hide (before
our users, and before fellow developers). I didn't get the impression
that this discussion wasn't rati
* Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050127 13:55]:
> All the rational discussion has always been about what constitutes
> 'hiding', and the rational conclusion has always been the same:
You mean: you never changed your mind? That's probably true, but that
doesn't make you to the master of the i
On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 01:26:15PM +0100, Frank K?ster wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 12:08:27PM -0700, Joel Aelwyn wrote:
> >> In fact, the parts you have chosen to keep, and respond to, are the far
> >> *less* relevant portions of what I wrote.
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 12:08:27PM -0700, Joel Aelwyn wrote:
>> In fact, the parts you have chosen to keep, and respond to, are the far
>> *less* relevant portions of what I wrote. They existed as a demonstration
>> only of one reason I consider it impo
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 12:08:27PM -0700, Joel Aelwyn wrote:
> In fact, the parts you have chosen to keep, and respond to, are the far
> *less* relevant portions of what I wrote. They existed as a demonstration
> only of one reason I consider it important for people to have some
> agreement on what
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 10:30:01AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 06:01:26PM -0700, Joel Aelwyn wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 12:06:06AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 10:52:48AM -0700, Joel Aelwyn wrote:
> > > > [1] Which is a separate ran
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 06:01:26PM -0700, Joel Aelwyn wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 12:06:06AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 10:52:48AM -0700, Joel Aelwyn wrote:
> > > [1] Which is a separate rant, and frankly, I think Debian needs to be
> > > clear about what we real
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 12:06:06AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 10:52:48AM -0700, Joel Aelwyn wrote:
> > [1] Which is a separate rant, and frankly, I think Debian needs to be
> > clear about what we really mean by "We won't hide probles" in our Social
> > Contract
>
> It
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 10:52:48AM -0700, Joel Aelwyn wrote:
> [1] Which is a separate rant, and frankly, I think Debian needs to be
> clear about what we really mean by "We won't hide probles" in our Social
> Contract
It's a literal statement. We won't hide them. As always with the
social contrac
13 matches
Mail list logo
