On 2004-02-24 03:57:55 + Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 01:17:13AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
As you write it, this is an unreasonable demand: who judges it?
who judges is a trivially easy question to answer: we all do.
when no
debian developer can be bothered
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 09:33:44AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Again, I see you have seconded something which we still don't know
is mule or fowl. Do you think you seconded an amendment or a new
proposal?
It was a proposed amendment, now it's had enough sponsors to be
introduced. Relax, already.
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 09:33:44AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-02-24 03:57:55 + Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 01:17:13AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
As you write it, this is an unreasonable demand: who judges it?
who judges is a trivially easy question to
I consider this proposed position statement poorly justified, for the
reasons that follow.
On 2004-02-21 15:48:48 + Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
First, it allows us to provide useful packages that we could not
otherwise
provide.
It also reduces the demand for developers to
On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 08:37:10PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 03:49:39PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
And this brings up a good point. Andrew, why can you and Raul not be
bothered to collect the current versions of your proposals, and post
here a solicitation for
On 2004-02-24 13:48:22 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
It does not really seem healthy for the Debian operating system
development
to use its facilities to help develop software that cannot be part
of the
Debian operating system.
Oh ? Please tell me how it is a
I second this as well.
On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 08:37:10PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 03:49:39PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
-8-
Paragraphs 1 to 4 of the social contract are replaced with the
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 10:34:16AM +, Jochen Voss wrote:
What is the current state of the non-free GR?
Which proposals are still being considered?
Which proposals still do need seconds?
Raul and Andrew: can you please answer these questions and post current
versions of your proposals in a
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 02:45:14PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-02-24 13:48:22 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
It does not really seem healthy for the Debian operating system
development
to use its facilities to help develop software that cannot be part
of the
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 02:56:52PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-02-24 13:25:01 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Please, let this proposal stand, as it was sufficiently seconded
anyway,
and keep your politics for the discussion period. Was it not yourself
that was telling
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 08:58:03AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
Manoj,
I refer you to
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01185.html,
which summarizes some history.
My present understanding is that the non-free removal GR I originally
proposed back in 2000, which
On 2004-02-24 15:47:31 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
You are trying to oppose bureaucracy to a timely resolution of this
vote.
I merely point out the problems with this silly proposal. You advocate
a null amendment that would restart the minimum discussion timer and
delay the
* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040224 17:10]:
You are trying to discuss not the proposed action, and if it is good or
not, but trying to cast some doubt on the receivability of the proposal
itself, which is not acceptable. There were far enough seconds, and it
seems good to have a final
On 2004-02-24 16:50:16 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think such encouragement/assistance is consistent with Debian's
stated goals.
What encouragement are you talking about?
The encouragement resulting from increased demand for a free
alternative.
Are you equating lack of support
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 08:58:03 -0600, John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
My present understanding is that the non-free removal GR I
originally proposed back in 2000, which received sufficient seconds
to proceed, was placed on hold by you after you assumed the
secretary position (see links in
What encouragement are you talking about?
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 06:17:56PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
The encouragement resulting from increased demand for a free
alternative.
How do you measure increased demand?
Is demand one person demanding, or demand it somehow related to the
number of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
General Resolution: Status of the non-free section
Date: Proposed: January 2004
Last Amendment: 21 February, 2004
Discussion Starts: Sunday, February 22 23:59:59 UTC 2004
Call For votes
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 08:59:30AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 10:34:16AM +, Jochen Voss wrote:
What is the current state of the non-free GR?
Which proposals are still being considered?
Which proposals still do need seconds?
Raul and Andrew: can you please
On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 04:35:17PM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote:
Andrew Suffield wrote:
I would hope that everybody who has a vote already knows what we want
the social contract to say, because they agreed to it when they joined
the project. The question of whether or not to keep non-free
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 08:46:42PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 04:35:17PM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote:
Uh, some of us were actually around before the social contract... and
I'm pretty sure nobody ever asked me if *I* agreed to it.
Uh, what? I thought it was
On 2004-02-24 03:57:55 + Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 01:17:13AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
As you write it, this is an unreasonable demand: who judges it?
who judges is a trivially easy question to answer: we all do.
when no
debian developer can be bothered
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 09:33:44AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Again, I see you have seconded something which we still don't know
is mule or fowl. Do you think you seconded an amendment or a new
proposal?
It was a proposed amendment, now it's had enough sponsors to be
introduced. Relax, already.
On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 07:27:28PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-02-23 19:57:21 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Well, if you manage to persuade those players, and a bunch of other
binary-only driver writers, to free their stuff, more power to you,
[...]
Given your previous
I consider this proposed position statement poorly justified, for the
reasons that follow.
On 2004-02-21 15:48:48 + Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
wrote:
First, it allows us to provide useful packages that we could not
otherwise
provide.
It also reduces the demand for
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 01:23:51PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
I consider this proposed position statement poorly justified, for the
reasons that follow.
Please, let this proposal stand, as it was sufficiently seconded anyway,
and keep your politics for the discussion period. Was it not yourself
that
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 01:23:51PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
I consider this proposed position statement poorly justified, for the
reasons that follow.
On 2004-02-21 15:48:48 + Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
wrote:
First, it allows us to provide useful packages that we could not
I second this as well:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 08:37:10PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 03:49:39PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
-8-
Paragraphs 1 to 4 of the social contract are replaced with the
On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 08:37:10PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 03:49:39PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
And this brings up a good point. Andrew, why can you and Raul not be
bothered to collect the current versions of your proposals, and post
here a solicitation for
I second this as well.
On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 08:37:10PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 03:49:39PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
-8-
Paragraphs 1 to 4 of the social contract are replaced with the
On 2004-02-24 13:25:01 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Please, let this proposal stand, as it was sufficiently seconded
anyway,
and keep your politics for the discussion period. Was it not yourself
that was telling something such in another mail ?
Aren't we in the discussion
Manoj,
I refer you to
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01185.html,
which summarizes some history.
My present understanding is that the non-free removal GR I originally
proposed back in 2000, which received sufficient seconds to proceed, was
placed on hold by you
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 10:34:16AM +, Jochen Voss wrote:
What is the current state of the non-free GR?
Which proposals are still being considered?
Which proposals still do need seconds?
Raul and Andrew: can you please answer these questions and post current
versions of your proposals in a
On 2004-02-24 15:08:20 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Yeah, but i think it is not a health problem, not a dissease, at
worst a
mild disconfort. I guess it is not even noticeable.
Discomfort can be a health problem. I don't think I called it a
disease.
Err, my anecdotes are
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 08:58:03AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
Manoj,
I refer you to
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01185.html,
which summarizes some history.
My present understanding is that the non-free removal GR I originally
proposed back in 2000, which
On 2004-02-24 15:47:31 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
You are trying to oppose bureaucracy to a timely resolution of this
vote.
I merely point out the problems with this silly proposal. You advocate
a null amendment that would restart the minimum discussion timer and
delay the
On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 08:37:10PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 03:49:39PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 08:42:06AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
And this brings up a good point. Andrew, why can you and Raul not be
bothered to collect the
* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040224 17:10]:
You are trying to discuss not the proposed action, and if it is good or
not, but trying to cast some doubt on the receivability of the proposal
itself, which is not acceptable. There were far enough seconds, and it
seems good to have a final
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 01:23:51PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
I consider this proposed position statement poorly justified, for the
reasons that follow.
I'm not going to address everything, but I'd like to point out at least
a few issues.
On 2004-02-21 15:48:48 + Anthony Towns
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 04:08:45PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-02-24 15:08:20 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Err, my anecdotes are first hand experience. So, i think it is rather
more than vague sentiments.
Please publish the comparative analysis of the magic non-free effect,
On 2004-02-24 16:50:16 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think such encouragement/assistance is consistent with Debian's
stated goals.
What encouragement are you talking about?
The encouragement resulting from increased demand for a free
alternative.
Are you equating lack of
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 08:58:03 -0600, John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
My present understanding is that the non-free removal GR I
originally proposed back in 2000, which received sufficient seconds
to proceed, was placed on hold by you after you assumed the
secretary position (see links in
Hi folks,
Well, though somewhat belatedly, I have now modified the
vote.d.o web pages to include the second vote for the year, namely,
the non-free GR. I note that there are two proposals which shall go
on the ballot, and each has the required minimum number of seconds.
The
What encouragement are you talking about?
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 06:17:56PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
The encouragement resulting from increased demand for a free
alternative.
How do you measure increased demand?
Is demand one person demanding, or demand it somehow related to the
number of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
General Resolution: Status of the non-free section
Date: Proposed: January 2004
Last Amendment: 21 February, 2004
Discussion Starts: Sunday, February 22 23:59:59 UTC 2004
Call For votes
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 08:59:30AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 10:34:16AM +, Jochen Voss wrote:
What is the current state of the non-free GR?
Which proposals are still being considered?
Which proposals still do need seconds?
Raul and Andrew: can you please
On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 01:48:48AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
I propose that the Debian project resolve that:
==
Acknowledging that some of our users continue to require the use of
programs that don't conform to the Debian
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 08:42:06AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 08:37:10PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 03:49:39PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
And this brings up a good point. Andrew, why can you and Raul not be
bothered to collect the
47 matches
Mail list logo
