> There was discussion of swapping the official and unofficial images
> for a number of submissions to both the Gimp contest and the logo
> vote. Not just the swirl. Many people said, "what if I like , but
> want them swapped?" It's an idea that's been in the air the whole
> time. I have no ide
On Wed, Jun 30, 1999 at 10:47:32AM -0700, Craig Brozefsky wrote:
> > I am not arguing this; there are plenty of people out there who have
> > the *perception* that we are Bolsheviks. This proposal will give more
> > fuel to their fire (can you see the Slashdot comments on an article
> > about this
On Wed, Jun 30, 1999 at 02:24:54PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> a) All general resolutions must start with an announcement to
> debian-devel-announce and debian-devel, with foolow ups
> redirected to -devel.
No. resolutions won't be tracked on -devel. If I get cc'd, I'll end up
g
Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Oh, I saw Brenden's comment that he might propose a swap (but didn't want to
> talk about it), I just failed to realise that the constitution said that we
> should assume that the terms of the vote were change
Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Jun 30, John Goerzen wrote:
> > In this case, what relevance does it have to the discussion at hand?
> > The day we are ruled by marketing concerns is the day we are doomed to
> > a fate akin to RedHat.
>
> I don't think we should be ruled by marke
Hi,
>>"Chris" == Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Chris> I am not arguing this; there are plenty of people out there
Chris> who have the *perception* that we are Bolsheviks. This
Chris> proposal will give more fuel to their fire (can you see the
Chris> Slashdot comments on an articl
Hi,
>>"Wichert" == Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Wichert> Your first and second point seem to be basically the same: you
Wichert> think the current method is not visible enough. There are currently
Wichert> no rules or guidelines that state how exactly proposals, seconds
Wichert
Hi,
>>"Wichert" == Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Wichert> Your first and second point seem to be basically the same:
Wichert> you think the current method is not visible enough.
Frankly, I thought this was quite significant. I think that if
general resolutions can sneak
On Wed, Jun 30, 1999 at 01:36:57PM +0900, Ionutz Borcoman wrote:
> What I'm really missing in our current state is an explanation in the
> description of non-free telling me why is that package there.
Ian Jackson proposed this well over a year ago, but nobody seems to have
done anything about it.
On Jun 30, John Goerzen wrote:
> In this case, what relevance does it have to the discussion at hand?
> The day we are ruled by marketing concerns is the day we are doomed to
> a fate akin to RedHat.
I don't think we should be ruled by marketing concerns; however, we
should be at least cognizant
Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am not arguing this; there are plenty of people out there who have
> the *perception* that we are Bolsheviks. This proposal will give more
> fuel to their fire (can you see the Slashdot comments on an article
> about this plan? I certainly can imagi
Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Jun 30, John Goerzen wrote:
> > Pardon me, but while I agree that there is really no need for the
> > separation, I must disagree fervently with your argument likening RMS,
> > and the FSF (to whom we owe our very existance) to the Bolsheviks.
>
>
On Jun 30, John Goerzen wrote:
> Pardon me, but while I agree that there is really no need for the
> separation, I must disagree fervently with your argument likening RMS,
> and the FSF (to whom we owe our very existance) to the Bolsheviks.
I am not arguing this; there are plenty of people out th
Previously Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
> >>"Wichert" == Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Wichert> Previously Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> Most votes (like the non-free issue) have been called with no
> >> formal proposal, seconds, or a discussion period. I have strong
> >> fe
Hi,
>>"Wichert" == Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Wichert> Previously Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Most votes (like the non-free issue) have been called with no
>> formal proposal, seconds, or a discussion period. I have strong
>> feeling against taking any action whatsoever merely
* DOB => Darren O Benham
DOB> On Wed, Jun 30, 1999 at 12:19:44AM +0200, Davide G. M. Salvetti wrote:
>> What about the proposer of a vote writing the pros, and---at the end
>> of the discussion period---anybody so inclined submitting cons by
>> means of a procedure similar to the amendment one
Pardon me, but while I agree that there is really no need for the
separation, I must disagree fervently with your argument likening RMS,
and the FSF (to whom we owe our very existance) to the Bolsheviks. It
is really uncalled-for, and not even close to being accurate. RMS is
acting to ensure mo
On Wed, 30 Jun 1999, Raul Miller wrote:
> Every tangible point in this summary appears to rest on the
> assumption that we need to have multiple physical servers to support
> the non-free/main split. This doesn't make sense to me: all we really
That's not very true, only the last paragraph cont
On Jun 30, Raul Miller wrote:
> Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As I mentioned earlier I have written what I'm calling a negative summary
> > of the split proposal.
>
> Every tangible point in this summary appears to rest on the
> assumption that we need to have multiple physical se
Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As I mentioned earlier I have written what I'm calling a negative summary
> of the split proposal.
Every tangible point in this summary appears to rest on the
assumption that we need to have multiple physical servers to support
the non-free/main split.
Otherwise just about everything in contrib has dependency on non-free
software.
That makes it simple--put the contrib packages on the server that has
the non-free packages.
A few months ago, I think someone mentioned that some packages were in
contrib because their quality or utility was
Le Wed, Jun 30, 1999 at 11:46:06AM +0200, Nils Rennebarth écrivait:
> On Wed, Jun 30, 1999 at 01:36:57PM +0900, Ionutz Borcoman wrote:
> > I completely agree with Jason.
> So do I (just to add another voice)
Me too.
> Very good. We could even define keywords or standard reasons why anything is
>
Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Where was the swap discussed?
> On -devel. (I wasn't even subscribed to -vote until last night.)
Oh, I saw Brenden's comment that he might propose a swap (but didn't want to
talk about it), I just failed to r
On Wed, Jun 30, 1999 at 01:36:57PM +0900, Ionutz Borcoman wrote:
> I completely agree with Jason.
So do I (just to add another voice)
> But I would like to see (in time, not immediately) that
> non-free packages explains why they are not free from the very
> beginning, aka in the description field
Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You went on on to say two other things:
> 1) the logo swap was aired during the vote.
> 2) the Modified swirl lost, so should be discounted
> Where was the swap discussed?
On -devel. (I wasn't even subscribed to -vote until last night.)
> Would
Hi,
I completely agree with Jason. I just want to add some more things
(already said this here and on IRC):
What I'm really missing in our current state is an explanation in the
description of non-free telling me why is that package there. You can
get these infos after you install the package or
On Wed, Jun 30, 1999 at 01:57:36AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> Well, quite. If people had left it alone, I probably would have too, at
> least
> until last weekend when I found myself explaining to several people that I
> couldn't sell them a swirl T-Shirt, because they were licensed in a way
As I mentioned earlier I have written what I'm calling a negative summary
of the split proposal. It focuses on the arguments against the archive
split and does not attempt to provide any sort of balance with the
arguments for the archive split which I belive are aplt represented in the
initial pro
On Wed, Jun 30, 1999 at 01:57:36AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> Here's my problem. Subverting the process by proposing something that is
> tangential to ones aims seems plain wrong to me. We're not sneaky
> politicians
> here, so why are we acting like them ?
>
> You went on on to say two oth
On Tue, Jun 29, 1999 at 08:20:13PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> This might be a good idea, but how did I get dragged into it? I have neither
> voted nor added to this vote discussion.
>
> Adam, who is a little perplexed
First name I came up with...
--
Please cc all mailing list replies to me, als
On Tue, 29 Jun 1999, Darren O. Benham wrote:
> > It does seem really stupid to be passing a general resolution of the
> > entire developer corps just to swap two piccies. It'd be nice if, in
> > future, these things could be thought about in advance enough so we only
> > need to vote once on these
> Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I'll leave you with a fairly simple question:
>
> > I like the swirl logo, and want it to be widely used.
> > I don't like the bottle logo, and don't want it as our official logo.
> >
> > How should I vote ?
>
> AH! Now I understand where
On Wed, Jun 30, 1999 at 12:19:44AM +0200, Davide G. M. Salvetti wrote:
> What about the proposer of a vote writing the pros, and---at the end
> of the discussion period---anybody so inclined submitting cons by
> means of a procedure similar to the amendment one (i.e., with a proper
> number of supp
On Tue, Jun 29, 1999 at 08:46:51PM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> OK, it looks like a mail SNAFU and the web pages being behind, have conspired
> to ensure that I didn't see that.
>
> I'll leave you with a fairly simple question:
>
> I like the swirl logo, and want it to be widely used.
> I do
34 matches
Mail list logo
