Re: Amendment of Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003

[Philippe Troin]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I propose this amendment replacing my previous one:
> 
>   Points 1. and 2. above are removed and replaced with:
> 
>   1. that the following text be appended to the first clause of the
>   Social Contract:
> 
> We apologize that the current state of some of our documentation and
> kernel drivers with binary-only firmware does not live up to this
> part of our Social Contract. While Debian 3.1 (codenamed sarge) will
> not meet this standard in those areas, we promise to rectify this in
> the following release.
> 
>   The first clause of the Social Contract as amended will read as
>   follows:
> 
> Debian will remain 100% free
> 
> We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a work is
> "free" in the document entitled "The Debian Free Software
> Guidelines". We promise that the Debian system and all its
> components will be free according to these guidelines. We will
> support people who create or use both free and non-free works on
> Debian. We will never make the system require the use of a non-free
> component.
> 
> We apologize that the current state of some of our documentation and
> kernel drivers with binary-only firmware does not live up to this
> part of our Social Contract. While Debian 3.1 (codenamed sarge) will
> not meet this standard in those areas, we promise to rectify this in
> the next full release.
> 
>   2. that the paragraph added to the Social Contract by this Resolution
>   shall be removed from the Social Contract upon the next full release
>   of Debian after Debian 3.1 (codenamed sarge), without further cause
>   for deliberation.
> 
> Potential seconders, please note that this supersedes my previous
> proposed amendment.

Seconded in this current form.

Phil.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.6 

iEYEARECAAYFAkCP8+kACgkQMrxzW26vf4cgigCfd55svQGl1cAMr9qsLUVa7IMW
pNoAn2hjnmAo5DVGbeSTWdcW269UGCML
=MPUa
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: well?

[Philippe Troin]

Sven LUTHER <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 08:25:42AM +1300, Michael Beattie wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 01:14:55PM +0100, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 05:26:44PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Are we all now clear on why ballots must be understandable, and why
> > > > transparency of process is important?
> > > 
> > > Should we vote on the wording of the ballot before each vote ?
> > 
> > No, because we need to vote on if we should vote in the wording of the vote
> > first.
> 
> A complete paralysis of the debian decision making process, nice, no ?

Debian has more been about playing Nomic lately 
( http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/nomic.htm ) than about putting up a
linux distribution...

Sigh...

Phil.


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: well?

[Philippe Troin]

Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 03:05:01PM -0800, Philippe Troin wrote:
> > Debian has more been about playing Nomic lately 
> > ( http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/nomic.htm ) than about putting up a
> > linux distribution...
> 
> You're really saying this this soon after we've had a new perl, a new X,
> a new dpkg, and a new glibc added to the archive? When we've finally got
> implementations for package pools and an improved release process (after
> how many years of discussion?) that we're in the process of putting in
> place? When the new somewhat decentralised n-m process has just passed
> the 100 new applicants mark?

Very true indeed.
I was just whining... But I still think that less politicking would be
better for the project...

Phil.


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Amendment of Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003

[Philippe Troin]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I propose this amendment replacing my previous one:
> 
>   Points 1. and 2. above are removed and replaced with:
> 
>   1. that the following text be appended to the first clause of the
>   Social Contract:
> 
> We apologize that the current state of some of our documentation and
> kernel drivers with binary-only firmware does not live up to this
> part of our Social Contract. While Debian 3.1 (codenamed sarge) will
> not meet this standard in those areas, we promise to rectify this in
> the following release.
> 
>   The first clause of the Social Contract as amended will read as
>   follows:
> 
> Debian will remain 100% free
> 
> We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a work is
> "free" in the document entitled "The Debian Free Software
> Guidelines". We promise that the Debian system and all its
> components will be free according to these guidelines. We will
> support people who create or use both free and non-free works on
> Debian. We will never make the system require the use of a non-free
> component.
> 
> We apologize that the current state of some of our documentation and
> kernel drivers with binary-only firmware does not live up to this
> part of our Social Contract. While Debian 3.1 (codenamed sarge) will
> not meet this standard in those areas, we promise to rectify this in
> the next full release.
> 
>   2. that the paragraph added to the Social Contract by this Resolution
>   shall be removed from the Social Contract upon the next full release
>   of Debian after Debian 3.1 (codenamed sarge), without further cause
>   for deliberation.
> 
> Potential seconders, please note that this supersedes my previous
> proposed amendment.

Seconded in this current form.

Phil.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.6 

iEYEARECAAYFAkCP8+kACgkQMrxzW26vf4cgigCfd55svQGl1cAMr9qsLUVa7IMW
pNoAn2hjnmAo5DVGbeSTWdcW269UGCML
=MPUa
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Vote Robinson for DPL!

[Philippe Troin]

Ean Schuessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Saturday 19 February 2005 02:30 pm, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Branden's implication on IRC was that he had already paid it when he
> > got the note from your mother, and that you had already said Huzzah!
> > when your mother sent the reminder, suggesting that you and she don't
> > communicate very well about business.
> 
> A strained suggestion at best. A promise from SPI to pay is not the same as a 
> check in hand. My Mom doesn't read spi-private. Worst case scenerio, I did 
> not run into my Mom's office and shout "they paid!" the second I read 
> Branden's post.
> 
> It mostly indicates that Branden did not copy my Mother on his
> message announcing payment. Otherwise, why would he write her?
> 
> In any case, my beef is that he is publicly talking about the
> incompetence of my organization for totally unsubstantiated
> reasons. That's bad behavior.  Even more so since my organization is
> a long-time, reliable and well behaved donor and supporter of the
> Debian project. If this is how Branden treats friends I'd hate to
> see how he treats enemies.

And that's my beef my Branden.  I do appreciate his work as a
maintainer, but he's overly brash in his interactions with other
people.  As the DPL is exposed to a lot of public attention, I think
Branden's personality is not suited to the position.  That's very
unfortunate because I think his energy would bring a lot of good
things to the helm of the project.

Hi Branden :-)  Flame on!

Phil.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: well?

[Philippe Troin]

Sven LUTHER <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 08:25:42AM +1300, Michael Beattie wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 01:14:55PM +0100, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 05:26:44PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Are we all now clear on why ballots must be understandable, and why
> > > > transparency of process is important?
> > > 
> > > Should we vote on the wording of the ballot before each vote ?
> > 
> > No, because we need to vote on if we should vote in the wording of the vote
> > first.
> 
> A complete paralysis of the debian decision making process, nice, no ?

Debian has more been about playing Nomic lately 
( http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/nomic.htm ) than about putting up a
linux distribution...

Sigh...

Phil.

Re: well?

[Philippe Troin]

Anthony Towns  writes:

> On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 03:05:01PM -0800, Philippe Troin wrote:
> > Debian has more been about playing Nomic lately 
> > ( http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/nomic.htm ) than about putting up a
> > linux distribution...
> 
> You're really saying this this soon after we've had a new perl, a new X,
> a new dpkg, and a new glibc added to the archive? When we've finally got
> implementations for package pools and an improved release process (after
> how many years of discussion?) that we're in the process of putting in
> place? When the new somewhat decentralised n-m process has just passed
> the 100 new applicants mark?

Very true indeed.
I was just whining... But I still think that less politicking would be
better for the project...

Phil.