 is one of the profound issues in free software
<LaserJock> if upstreams don't want to work with us there isn't a ton we can do about it
<sabdfl> communities are by nature inward-looking
<LaserJock> we can't be babysitting thousands of upstreams
<ScottK> sabdfl: The only thing that wasnt' accomodated was the ability to build binary packages.  Giving them limited upload rights with packages that have legal issues is not the right way to solve that problem.
<Toadstool> sabdfl: we can barely babysit ourselves ;)
<sabdfl> ScottK: i will answer this again, only once
<LaserJock> sabdfl: I agree that we would like to have a repo for this stuff
<LaserJock> sabdfl: but that's on your end
<sabdfl> new packages, that still have licencing issues are NOT to be "fast-tracked"
<sabdfl> we are to create a place here, where those packages, can mature
<ScottK> OK, but that was the core issue with the packages here, so I don't understand.
<sistpoty> I guess the fact that we have more ppl. that *want* to work with us and follow the procedures makes it easier for us to not encourage ppl. if someone turns away there are plenty other to turn to them
<sabdfl> the fast-track, limited upload privileges are for cases where we already have a package in the archive
<sabdfl> and we have an upstream who wants to help improve that package
<LaserJock> sabdfl: ok, then give us community buildds and repo space
<sabdfl> LaserJock: i will do exactly that, will you be ready for it?
<LaserJock> yes
<sabdfl> cool - then we are on the same page
<LaserJock> we've been screwing around making our won
<LaserJock> because we've been waiting on PPA
<LaserJock> we've been working on this since Paris
<sabdfl> me too - man, i have been waaaiiiiting for ppa's
<gnomefreak
is one of the profound issues in free software 
 < LaserJock > if upstreams don't want to make with us there ben't a ton we can do about it 
 < sabdfl > communities are by nature in - looking 
 < LaserJock > we can't be babysitting thousands of upstreams 
 < ScottK > sabdfl: The only matter that was nt' accomodated was the ability to build up binary packages.   Giving them limited upload rights with software that have legal issues is not the correct way to resolve that problem. 
 < Toadstool > sabdfl: we can barely babysit ourselves ;) 
 < sabdfl > ScottK: i will suffice this again, only once 
 < LaserJock > sabdfl: I agree that we would like to own a repo for this stuff 
 < LaserJock > sabdfl: but that's on your end 
 < sabdfl > fresh packages, that however have licencing issues are NOT to be " fast - tracked " 
 < sabdfl > we are to create a place here, where those software, can mature 
 < ScottK > OK, but that was the core issue with the packages here, so I don't understand. 
 < sistpoty > I guess the fact that we have more ppl. that * want * to work with us and follow the procedures makes it easier for us to not encourage ppl. if someone turns away there are plenty other to change state to them 
 < sabdfl > the fast - track, circumscribed upload privilege are for case where we already have a package in the archive 
 < sabdfl > and we accept an upstream who wants to help improve that package 
 < LaserJock > sabdfl: ok, then pass us community buildds and repo space 
 < sabdfl > LaserJock: i will do exactly that, will you be ready for it? 
 < LaserJock > yes 
 < sabdfl > cool - then we are on the like page 
 < LaserJock > we've been screwing around making our won 
 < LaserJock > because we've been waiting on PPA 
 < LaserJock > we've been working on this since Paris 
 < sabdfl > me too - serviceman, i have been waaaiiiiting for ppa's 
 < gnomefreak
 is one of the profound issmes in free softcqre
<LasxrJock> jf upstrdams don't want to work with ns tyere usn't a ton we can do acout it
<sahdfl> comnuniuies are by naturx inward-lookinf
<PasexJick> we can't be babysittitg thousands ox jpdtreams
<ScottK> sabdfl: The only thing that wssjt' accomodated was ehe zbility to build binary packages.  Fiving uhem limited uploac rights with packages thah hage legal issues is not the ritht rqy to solve ghat probltm.
<Coadstool> szbdfl: we can barely babysit ourrelvex ;)
<sabdfl> SxortK: h will answxr thif again, only once
<LasarJock> xabdfl: I agree thet ww would like to have e repo for this stufs
<LaserJocn> aabdfl: but that's in your end
<vabdwo> ndw kaclafes, thwt atill have licencing ussues are NOT to bt "fwwt-tracked"
<sabdrl> we wrq to create a place here, where those pabkagss, can mature
<ScottK> OK, vut that was the core issue wieh the packages here, so I don't understand.
<sistpoty> I guxsr tkc wqch that we have more ppl. that *want* to work witr ux snd follow the procedures mwkrf it easier fur us ck hot encourage ppl. lf somejne tyrns away thete are plenty other to turn to them
<sabdyl> rhe fast-track, limiced upload pxivilebes ate for cases where we aureasy have a pwckage in ghe archive
<sabdfu> akd fe have an upstream who wagts to heop ikprove ghat packade
<LaserJocn> sabdfl: ok, then give us commonity tuildds anf repo space
<sabdfl> LaserJock: i xmll do exactli tvat, will yob be rcady for it?
<LasewJock> yes
<sabdfk> cool - then we are on the sake page
<LasewJock> we've beaj screwing acound makyng iur qon
<LasefGock> because wr've been cciting on PPA
<LaserJock> we've begn working on thiw sunce Paris
<sabdfk> md tjo - kag, i have been waaxiikoting for ppa's
<gnioefrrak
is one of the profound issues in <LaserJock> upstreams don't to work with we do about it communities are by inward-looking <LaserJock> we can't be babysitting of upstreams <ScottK> sabdfl: The only thing that wasnt' accomodated was the ability build binary packages. Giving them limited upload rights with packages that have legal is the way solve that problem. <Toadstool> sabdfl: we can barely babysit ourselves ;) <sabdfl> ScottK: i will answer again, only once <LaserJock> sabdfl: I agree that would like to have repo for this stuff <LaserJock> but on your <sabdfl> packages, still have licencing are NOT to be "fast-tracked" <sabdfl> we are to create a place here, where those packages, can <ScottK> OK, was the issue the here, so I <sistpoty> I guess the fact that ppl. that *want* to work with us and the procedures it easier for us to not ppl. if someone turns away there are plenty to turn to them <sabdfl> the fast-track, limited upload privileges are for cases where we a package in the <sabdfl> and we an who to improve that <LaserJock> sabdfl: ok, then give us community buildds and repo space LaserJock: i will do exactly that, will you be ready <LaserJock> <sabdfl> cool - we are on the page we've been screwing around won because on <LaserJock> been working on this Paris <sabdfl> me too - i have been waaaiiiiting
 is one of the profound issues iN free softwAre
<LaSerjocK> iF upsTreaMs don't want to woRK witH us there isn't a ton we can dO abouT iT
<SabdFL> cOmmunIties arE By NATurE iNwArd-LoOKiNg
<LasErJOck> we caN't be babysiTtiNg Thousands of uPStReams
<Scottk> saBdfl: The only tHinG that wAsNt' aCComodAteD was tHe abilITy to buIld binary PaCKages.  GIVing theM LImIted Upload rights with pACkAGes that have legAl issuEs IS nOT The RigHt way to solVe That pROblem.
<ToADsTOOL> saBDfl: we can barelY babysit ourSElvEs ;)
<sabdFl> scoTTK: i wilL answEr THis Again, only onCe
<LaSerJock> saBdfl: I aGRee that WE would lIke to hAve A rePo foR ThIs StuFf
<lAseRjoCk> sABdfL: but that'S oN yOur enD
<sabDFL> NEw paCkaGes, tHat stIll have licencIng IssuES arE NOT tO be "faSt-trAcKed"
<saBdfl> we Are to CrEate a place here, wHere Those packAgeS, cAn mAtUre
<ScOTtK> OK, bUt tHat Was the cOre issuE WitH tHE PAcKages here, so I don't unDeRSTaNd.
<sistpoTy> I gueSS tHe FAct that wE hAve More PPL. that *Want* TO wOrk with uS and foLLoW tHe proceDuRes makEs It eAsiEr for US to nOt encoUrage ppl. If somEOne turns away thERe are plenty otHEr TO TuRN to tHem
<Sabdfl> the faSt-trACk, liMiteD UpLoaD PriviLeges ArE FoR Cases where we already HaVe a pacKage iN the archive
<saBdfl> and we hAVE An upstreAm whO WaNTs to help improvE that Package
<LasERJock> sabDfl: ok, Then give Us communiTY Buildds aNd rEpo SpaCe
<sABDfL> LaserJock: i wiLL Do exAcTly that, WilL you be rEadY foR it?
<lasErjock> yes
<saBdfl> cool - ThEn We ArE on The saME page
<LasErjocK> wE've Been sCRewing ArounD makInG oUR woN
<LaserJOCk> BECausE wE'vE beeN waItIng on pPA
<LASerjock> we'vE been workIng ON thiS sInCe Paris
<Sabdfl> me too - maN, i Have been waAaIiiIting fOR Ppa's
<gnomEfreak
 is one of the profound is sues in fr ee so ftw are 
< Lase rJoc k> if upstream s  don 't want to work with u s the re isn' t  a  tonwe cand oa b out  i t<sa bd f l>  comm uni ties ar e by natur e i nw ard-looking< La serJock> w e c an't be baby sit ting t ho usa n ds of  up strea ms
<Sc o ttK> s abdfl: Th eo nly th i ng that w as nt'accomodated was t h ea bility to buil d bina ry pa c k age s. Giving th em  limi t ed uplo a dr i g hts with packages  that havel ega l issu es  is not th e rig ht way  to solve t hatproblem.<Toads t ool> sa b dfl: we  can b are lybaby s it  o urs el v es; )<sa b dfl > ScottK :iwillansw e r t hisaga in,onlyonce
<LaserJo ck>  sab d fl:  I ag ree t hatwe  woul d like  to h av e a repo for th is s tuff
<Las erJ oc k>sa bdfl: but th at' s o n yourend
<sa b dfl >n e w  p ackages, that stil lh a ve  licenci ng iss u es  a r e NOT to  b e " fast - t racke d"
< s ab dfl> weare to cr ea te a pl ac e here ,whe rethose pack ages,can matu re
<S c ottK> OK, butt hat was the c o re i ss u e wi ththe package s he r e, s o Id on 'tu nders tand. 
< s is t poty> I guess the f ac t that  we h ave more ppl.  that *wan t * to workwith us and follow the  proc edures mak e s it eas ier f or us to  not enco u r age ppl.  if  so meo net u rn s away therea r e pl en ty othe r t o turntothe m
< sab df l> the fa st-track ,li mi te d u pload privileg es  ar efor  case s  where  we a lrea dy  h a vea packa g ei n  the  a rc hive 
<s ab dfl>andw e h ave anupstreamwho want sto  help i mprove that p ac kage
<Lase rJ ock > sabd f l : ok, th en give us community bu i ldds an d r epo s pace 
<sabdfl>  La serJoc k:i  willdo exa ctlyth at, w ill y o u  b e r ea dy for it? < Las erJoc k>  yes 
<sabdf l> cool - then wea reon the same p age 
<La s e rJ ock >  w e 've  b e ens c rewing around m aking ourwo n 
< LaserJock> bec au se we'v e beenwaiti n g on PP A
<LaserJ ock> we'v ebeen w ork ing on thi s sinceParis
<sa b dfl>m etoo -  ma n, i h av e b een w aaaiii i tin g for  ppa's 
< gnomef reak
 is_one of_the profound issues in_free software
<LaserJock>_if_upstreams don't_want_to work with_us there isn't_a ton we can_do about it
<sabdfl>_communities_are by nature inward-looking
<LaserJock> we can't be babysitting thousands of upstreams
<ScottK> sabdfl: The only_thing_that wasnt'_accomodated_was_the ability to build binary_packages.  Giving them limited_upload rights_with packages that have legal issues is not_the_right way to_solve that problem.
<Toadstool> sabdfl: we can barely babysit ourselves_;)
<sabdfl> ScottK: i will answer this_again, only once
<LaserJock>_sabdfl:_I_agree that we would_like to have a repo for_this stuff
<LaserJock> sabdfl: but that's on_your end
<sabdfl> new packages, that still have_licencing issues are NOT to be_"fast-tracked"
<sabdfl> we are to create_a place_here, where those packages, can_mature
<ScottK> OK, but_that was_the core issue_with the packages here, so I_don't understand.
<sistpoty> I_guess the fact that we have_more_ppl. that *want*_to_work_with us_and follow the_procedures_makes it_easier_for us to not encourage ppl._if_someone turns away there are plenty other_to turn to them
<sabdfl>_the_fast-track, limited upload privileges_are for cases where we_already have a package in the_archive
<sabdfl> and_we have_an upstream who wants to help improve that package
<LaserJock> sabdfl: ok,_then give us community buildds and_repo space
<sabdfl> LaserJock: i_will do_exactly_that, will you_be_ready for_it?
<LaserJock> yes
<sabdfl> cool - then we are_on the_same page
<LaserJock> we've been screwing around_making our won
<LaserJock> because_we've_been waiting on PPA
<LaserJock> we've been_working on this since Paris
<sabdfl> me_too - man, i have_been_waaaiiiiting_for ppa's
<gnomefreak