On 11/06/2016 02:59 PM, Giovanni Rapagnani wrote:
>
> Based on these observations, I think the information on [2] should be
> updated to tell DNG is the primary ML. devuan-discuss would better be
> closed and all the subscribers informed that DNG is the primary ML for
> getting help and discuss about Devuan, because it has always been and
> people never switched to devuan-discuss.
>

The devuan-discuss mailing list was created to harmonize the lists:
devuan-announce, devuan-discuss, and devuan-dev, and to move away from
the "Debian is Not GNOME" antagonist pattern.

People never switched because there was no discussion about the identity
of Devuan. All we know is that Devuan is not Debian. But we can't
define our identity on a negative: Devuan has another energy than just
being opposed to a unequivocal way of thinking about free software.

I'm sad that people who were determined enough to switch distro would be
lazy enough to not jump ships and say: here we are, we are Devuan, and
we are not just against stuff.

I love the idea of having a history and roots, and that DNG is the heart
of our common ancestry. I know people use email filters that have to be
updated in order to keep the sorting going. But I hate thinking about
GNOME every time I post to DNG, for the simple reason that I have never
used it and do not feel concerned about opposing GNOME. I'm sure it
works for a number of people, and I'm not part of them.

Don't you have a problem thinking about Devuan as "Debian without systemd"?

I know we're still early in the process of differentiation, but I'm
already pretty sure that what Devuan is becoming is not *in comparison
of* anything. The fact we're receiving news of people making new
derivatives regularly should be much more important in our decision
making than any anti-foo bigotry.

So yes, devuan-discuss is not useful. But contrary to what Jaromil
said, it was not a 'top-down' approach to create it: if it were,
everybody on DNG would have been subscribed to devuan-discuss and DNG
would have been closed and kept for historical reason, which is what
should happen if we really cared to think about our identity as an
universal free software operating system.

I understand Devuan as neither top-down nor bottom-up, but organic and
transversal. So I don't say bottom-up: I say topless.

Regards,

==
hk

P.S.: in the meantime I edited the web site to remove mention of
devuan-discuss to avoid confusion. But I'd rather do the opposite, and
freeze DNG.

-- 
 _ _     We are free to share code and we code to share freedom
(_X_)yne Foundation, Free Culture Foundry * https://www.dyne.org/donate/