Re: NM queue and groups [Was: NEW queue and ftp-master approval]

2005-01-27 Thread Andrew Suffield
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

Re: NM queue and groups [Was: NEW queue and ftp-master approval]

2005-01-26 Thread Joel Aelwyn
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

Re: NM queue and groups [Was: NEW queue and ftp-master approval]

2005-01-26 Thread Andrew Suffield
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

Re: NM queue and groups [Was: NEW queue and ftp-master approval]

2005-01-25 Thread Joel Aelwyn
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

Re: NM queue and groups [Was: NEW queue and ftp-master approval]

2005-01-25 Thread Andrew Suffield
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