Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> The proposers and sponsors of option 5 didn't propose this as an amendment
>> to the current GR. Why should they have to *withdraw* the proposal in order
>> to get it considered separately at a later time?
>
> They only need to do so to prevent it from being on
On Sun, Nov 16 2008, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 11:42:19AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> I do not think throwing options out because they are not of a
>> narrow and limited scope is right. The proposer and sponsors can
>> withdraw them, if they think the scope is
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 11:42:19AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I do not think throwing options out because they are not of a
> narrow and limited scope is right. The proposer and sponsors can
> withdraw them, if they think the scope is too broad for the problem at
> hand. No one els
On Sun, Nov 16 2008, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Sunday 16 November 2008, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> I think we can be reasonably sure that the current spate of
>> discussions is about releasing Lenny. For this action, any of the
>> ballot options will have a distinct decision; and the ballot
On Sun, Nov 16 2008, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le samedi 15 novembre 2008 à 19:39 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
>> > Hm, no, the impression that I got from this discussion that at least
>> > several people here think the result of "Further discussion" is:
>> >
>> > i Do we require source f
On Sunday 16 November 2008, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I think we can be reasonably sure that the current spate of
> discussions is about releasing Lenny. For this action, any of the
> ballot options will have a distinct decision; and the ballot should
> have _all_ the possible courses of
On Sun, Nov 16 2008, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> * Manoj Srivastava [Sat, 15 Nov 2008 17:38:56 -0600]:
>
>> That does not seem to make sense. Either you have
>> 'none of this non-free crap in the archive ever'
>> or you have
>> 'the release team downgrades these bugs and includes non-
On Sun, Nov 16 2008, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 04:24:18PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Hm, no, the impression that I got from this discussion that at least
>> several people here think the result of "Further discussion" is:
>
> Let me observe that the fact that "several
On Sat, Nov 15 2008, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Stephen Gran:
>
>> It's not possible to express the full set of relations in a single
>> winner vote, as far as I can tell. It might be someone's vote to say
>> 'none of this non-free crap in the archive ever' and simultaneously
>> say 'but the relea
On Sat, Nov 15 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Charles Plessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> we all agree that the result of "Further discussion" is the following,
>> don't we?
>>
>> i Do we require source for firmware in main: As usual
>>ii Do we allow the Release Team to ig
On Sat, Nov 15 2008, Stephen Gran wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Manoj Srivastava said:
>> On Sat, Nov 15 2008, Adeodato Simó wrote:
>> >
>> >> | We as Developers at large continue to trust our release team to follow
>> >> | all these goals, and therefor encourage them to continue making
* Stephen Gran:
> It's not possible to express the full set of relations in a single
> winner vote, as far as I can tell. It might be someone's vote to say
> 'none of this non-free crap in the archive ever' and simultaneously
> say 'but the release team does have the authority to downgrade these
This one time, at band camp, Manoj Srivastava said:
> On Sat, Nov 15 2008, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> >
> >> | We as Developers at large continue to trust our release team to follow
> >> | all these goals, and therefor encourage them to continue making
> >> | case-by-case-decisions as they consider
On Sat, Nov 15 2008, Adeodato Simó wrote:
>> ,[ Proposal 4: Allow release managers leeway to include non-dfsg bits as
>> needed ]
>> | Debian's priorities are our users and free software. We don't trade
>> | them against each other. However during getting an release out of the
>> | door, d
On Sat, Nov 15 2008, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> Peter Palfrader's proposal [1] explicitly said, and I quote:
>
> | I'm hereby proposing the following general resolution.
>
> I don't think it's acceptable to bundle it up with the ongoing GR, since
> it was not proposed as an amendment to it.
> ,[ Proposal 4: Allow release managers leeway to include non-dfsg bits as
> needed ]
> | Debian's priorities are our users and free software. We don't trade
> | them against each other. However during getting an release out of the
> | door, decisions need to be done how to get a rock stabl
Peter Palfrader's proposal [1] explicitly said, and I quote:
| I'm hereby proposing the following general resolution.
I don't think it's acceptable to bundle it up with the ongoing GR, since
it was not proposed as an amendment to it.
[1]: http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2008/11/msg00164.
Hi,
This is how things stand:
The Situation: We are close to releasing Lenny
The Problem: The kernels we are shipping have blobs that might not meet
the DFSG, and some might be in violation of the kernel's
GPL license. This would put them in conflict with the S
18 matches
Mail list logo
