On 2016-11-08 06:05, hellekin wrote:
> 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.

----------------------------------------------------

If this rationale had been presented before the executive decision was
made to "harmonize" (tm codex-speak) the lists, this dislocation might
have been avoided. Perhaps we could reset and try again by asking for
community feedback before a final decision is made? Somehow, one
executive decision overridden by yet another is not an improvement in
community relations IMO.

My .02

golinux