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
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
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, 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
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 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, 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 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
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
* Debian Project Secretaru ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060918 20:56]:
> From: Frederik Schueler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 23:06:54 +0200
>
> Good signature from EA7ED2A341954920 Frederik Schüler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> ,
> | 1. We affirm that ou
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:40:08 +0200, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 10:27:12PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Proponents of various various amendments to the GR should feel free
>> to send me a couple of paragraphs in HTML markup to
>> introduce/expla
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Since it has been decreed that the secretary has no discretion
> in putting up properly proposed and seconded text, this request is
> now moot.
> We do have an issue now with people seconding extraneous text,
> including signatures
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 01:28:26 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 10:15:28PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
>> I don't think it is too much to ask that the proposers and/or
>> seconders of General Resolutions create and maintain wiki pages,
>> for example, whe
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Seems like I'm damned if I do, and damned if I don't.
It seems to me as if what happened was:
You thought the "preamble" was rationale and not part of the
resolution proper; but the proposer said "no, that was an important
part of the resolu
Russ Allbery writes ("Re: The Sourceless software in the kernel source GR"):
> I don't really know how best to help with the underlying problem here.
Part of the problem is that there are still people who think that we
can rely on procedures to protect us absolutely fro
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 18:39:01 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Seems like I'm damned if I do, and damned if I don't.
> It seems to me as if what happened was:
> You thought the "preamble" was rationale and not part of the
> r
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 07:44:20PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > No one has asked that the vote.d.o pages include "background
> > material". I have asked that the text of resolutions not be
> > misleadingly edited
> Miisleadingly edited? Wittingly or unwittingly? Are you
> claiming
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What is an issue is that a sloppy proposal mail may have
> mislead the sponsors to believe that a preamble was an introductory
> section, or vice versa. Hard to know unless the proposors and ponsors
> are clear about their intent.
Right, s
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 21:56:25 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> What is an issue is that a sloppy proposal mail may have mislead
>> the sponsors to believe that a preamble was an introductory
>> section, or vice versa. Hard to k
On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 10:02:08AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:40:08 +0200, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 10:27:12PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Proponents of various various amendments to the GR should feel
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't care about just the proposers opinion, I want to
> ensure that what the proposer is telling me is what the people and
> the sponsors also agreed to. I suppose we could have a lengthy email
> exchange, and assume that the sponsors a
Hi,
* Debian Project Secretaru ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060918 20:56]:
> 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 there has not been many new arguments lately, and the outcome of this
GRs is
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I don't care about just the proposers opinion, I want to
> ensure that what the proposer is telling me is what the people and
> the sponsors also agreed to. I suppose we could have a lengthy email
> exchange,
Oooh, "lengthy". Just email the damn sponsors and
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:40:08 +0200, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> said:
>
>> On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 10:27:12PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Proponents of various various amendments to the GR should feel free
>>> to send me a couple of paragraphs i
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Either it is preambulatory material, or it is part of the
> resolution
If it is preambulatory material, then it is part of the resolution.
*There* lies the crux of the disagreement.
(If it is not part of the resolution, it might be *supplementary* material,
or
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:
>>> On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 12:36:17 -0700, Steve Langasek
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>>> > For the record, this is not
27 matches
Mail list logo
