Beer Swap (was Re: Volume on -devel)
Alright I can't not say anything anymore. How can you justify limiting
non-developers by saying they add nothing pertinient to Debian
developement when you are participating in a thread that doesn't belong on
-devel? (UK get together)
Just because it is developers getting together doesn't make this list an
appropriate forum for it. If the act of *being* a developer makes your
threads, regardless of content or pertinence, justified then the whole
list is a farce in the first place.
-Ian
On Thu, 18 Mar 1999, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> Our esteemed ex-DPL Ian wrote:
> > -devel is too high volume, and has many posts from people who are
> > apparently lacking in clues. I hope that these people (I won't name
> > names) are not developers.
> >
> > I renew my call for -devel to be closed to non-developer postings.
> >
> > Perhaps if -devel didn't have postings from nondevelopers we wouldn't
> > be so tempted to discuss things on -private when there is no need for
> > privacy.
>
> But the amount of material on -devel which falls into the category of
> "low-level flame-war" or "meaningless to-ing and fro-ing" by
> developers is, in my humble and subjective opinion, far greater than
> the amount of clueless stuff by non-developers. And far more
> annoying.
>
> As an in-between suggestion, given that developers-to-be should be
> able to get involved in this list, is that potential developers
> register their interest as such and are then given permission to post
> to -devel.
>
> Julian
>
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>
> Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, QMW, Univ. of London. J.D.Gilbey@qmw.ac.uk
> Debian GNU/Linux Developer. jdg@debian.org
> -*- Finger jdg@master.debian.org for my PGP public key. -*-
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
______________________________________________________________________
Ian Setford ians@unt.edu
PGP = F2 92 50 E3 CD D7 A2 D9 C4 CE 08 A6 98 E0 0F 58
Reply to: