Re: Draft vote on constitutional issues

2009-05-12 Thread Wouter Verhelst
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 06:59:41PM +0100, Matthew Johnson wrote: > On Sun May 10 18:34, Luk Claes wrote: > > > 3. Option X overrides a foundation document, possibly temporarily (?) > > > > Not possible. You can only override a decision and amending a foundation > > document is the previous option.

Re: Draft vote on constitutional issues

2009-05-12 Thread Matthew Johnson
On Tue May 12 17:06, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > What would you call the vote to ship non-free software in etch? Because > > that is what I mean. We are agreeing to do something which the > > foundation document said we would not, but only for a certain period of > > time (etch). > > > > I don't _c

Re: Draft vote on constitutional issues

2009-05-12 Thread Thomas Bushnell BSG
On Tue, 2009-05-12 at 17:06 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > I think this is the core of the disagreement. I do not call it a > temporary override of a foundation document; I call it a temporary > practical consensus between "the needs of our users" and "the needs of > the free software community".

Re: Draft vote on constitutional issues

2009-05-12 Thread Luk Claes
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > On Tue, 2009-05-12 at 17:06 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: >> I think this is the core of the disagreement. I do not call it a >> temporary override of a foundation document; I call it a temporary >> practical consensus between "the needs of our users" and "the needs of

Re: PGP keys: advice from keyring maintainers ?

2009-05-12 Thread Jonathan McDowell
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 01:25:53AM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > Quoting the mail fully for the added recipients. Looks like Charles was > too shy to do so. Thanks. I only follow -project sporadically. > Charles Plessy (12/05/2009): > > Dear all, > > > > I am getting quite confused after read