Because there appears to be some residual confusion[1][2][3] about
what I actually proposed and its content, here is the proposal as it
currently stands. The proposal is only the content between BEGIN
PROPOSAL and END PROPOSAL.
== BEGIN PROPOSAL =
The F
Hi,
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 21:05:32 -0700, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Mon, 18 Sep 2006, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Proponents of various various amendments to the GR should feel free
>> to send me a couple of paragraphs in HTML markup to
>> introduce/explain the resolutions they ar
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 18:46:50 -0700, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Mon, 18 Sep 2006, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 16:03:11 -0700, Steve Langasek
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> > On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 05:32:10PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> >> Which is it, a
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 16:03:11 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 05:32:10PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> Which is it, a preamble to the resolution, or the resolution
> >> itself?
>
> > It is a preamble, a
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 16:03:11 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 05:32:10PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 12:36:17 -0700, Steve Langasek
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> > For the record, this is not the full text of the votable
>> > r
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 16:03:11 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 05:32:10PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 12:36:17 -0700, Steve Langasek
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> > For the record, this is not the full text of the votable
>> > r
On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 05:32:10PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 12:36:17 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > For the record, this is not the full text of the votable resolution
> > which I proposed; the preceding text was preambulatory text, not
> > rationa
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 12:36:17 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> For the record, this is not the full text of the votable resolution
> which I proposed; the preceding text was preambulatory text, not
> rationale, and was submitted as part of the resolution itself.
Which is
Le lun 18 septembre 2006 20:42, Debian Project Secretaru a écrit :
> GR Amendment 3: Special exception to DFSG #2 for firmware
>
> From: Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 11:37:20 +0200
I second that proposal made by josselin mouette ag
On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 01:42:14PM -0500, Debian Project Secretaru wrote:
> ,
> | THE DEBIAN PROJECT therefore,
> | 1. reaffirms its dedication to providing a 100% free system to
> |our users according to our Social Contract and the DFSG; and
> | 2. encourages author
Hi,
I have gone through the last couple of months of mail
archives, and came up with the current state of the proposals we have
before us. As I see it; there are two solid amendments, and an iffy
third one, and a slew of proposals that have not yet gathered enough
seconds to make it to
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 21:56:02 +0100, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Note that this is a draft, voting is not yet open. Any comments
>>> need to be in fast, though.
>
>> Could you name the amendment on the ballot, please? "
12 matches
Mail list logo
