For starters: this is not (and cannot be[1]) a proposal. These suggested
changes to BR1 are offered in hopes that BR1 will be adjusted along
these lines. If for some reason someone wants to incorporate this as a
proposal, it needs to be proposed separately.
The changes:
1) Further clean up the so
On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 02:19:22PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Actually, I disagree with one of the editorial changes (on-line ->
> online), but I haven't found any semantic changes in the proposal that I
> think I disagree with. I haven't decided yet if I care about the
> editorial change enou
On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 02:19:22PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 10:45:35AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 12:04:38AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 11:10:45PM +0100, Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
> > > > > I am seeking seconds an
On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 05:18:25PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 10:43:18AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > The side effect being that removing the non-free section of our archive
> > will only need a normal GR, or even a decision of the tech comitee,
> > instead of needing
On 2003-10-31 06:17:28 + Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
1) Further clean up the software|work conflation, and replace 'run'
with 'use' or 'be used' and software with 'works' and/or 'software and
other works'
Using "software and other works" either has redundancy or apparently
end
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, MJ Ray wrote:
> Using "software and other works" either has redundancy or apparently
> endorses the false assertion that software = programs.
I'd personally argue that its merely redundant. However, with the
suggestions as made I don't really see that the assertion that
softw
On Oct 31, 2003, at 02:47, Sven Luther wrote:
archive with only a technical comitee decision or a simple GR.
Why would the technical committee have the power to drop non-free?
Isn't non-free is a political policy, not a technical one?
Richard Braakman:
> The +(INS|DEL) part means that INS and DEL can occur anywhere in
> a BODY or its children.
Yes, but they can only contain block or inline content, of which LI is
neither. UL can contain an INS, yes, but an INS cannot contain an LI.
validator.w3.org has validates using the SGM
On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 03:44:51PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> and people prefer:
> Editorial defeats No by 300:20
> Editorial defeats Branden's by 170:150
> Branden's defeats No by 170:150
Given we've got the 3:1 supermajority requirement now, a better example would
be:
On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 08:47:54AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> And Branden, i find that trying to induce your fellow developers in
> confusion with a global GR like that
Why are you accusing me of this? I've explained why I feel as I do. Do
you suspect me of insincerity?
Lay your cards on the t
(Or: How You and Five of Your Friends Can Kill Any GR)
On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 04:04:05PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Does Branden's pass the supermajority clause? If not, it presumably
> wouldn't if reasked anyway, and it fails.
If it does, and is reasked, what's to stop a group of
> "Branden" == Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Branden> The only real way out of this, it seems, is to advocate insincere
Branden> voting. ("Please rank Mr. A's editorial-only amendments below
'further
Branden> discussion' even if you like them, because the whole pur
On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 08:51:44AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 05:18:25PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > I expect we'll continue to handle archive organization issues much the
> > same way we always have, unless we decide to change that. But that's
> > orthogonal to my
On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 01:10:51PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> (Or: How You and Five of Your Friends Can Kill Any GR)
>
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 04:04:05PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Does Branden's pass the supermajority clause? If not, it presumably
> > wouldn't if reasked anyw
On Oct 31, 2003, at 13:10, Branden Robinson wrote:
If it does, and is reasked, what's to stop a group of 6 people[1] from
proposing an "amendment" that guts the original proposal down to
nothing
but uncontroversial cosmetic alterations?
Does that really hurt?
Option A: Strike SC 5
FUEL SAVER PRO
This revolutionary device Boosts Gas Mileage 27%+ by helping fuel burn better
using three patented processes from General Motors.
Take a test drive Today - http://www.llat.org?axel=49
PROVEN TECHNOLOGY
A certified U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) laboratory recently
co
On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 12:22:24PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 08:47:54AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > And Branden, i find that trying to induce your fellow developers in
> > confusion with a global GR like that
>
> Why are you accusing me of this? I've explained why
After some thought, :-) I have concluded that it may be preferable to
separate the proposal to drop Social Contract clause 5 from the other
changes. I, and probably others, care much more about nailing down that
everything in 'main' must follow the DFSG, than about what happens to clause
5, an
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 13:16:54 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> No, you're wrong. The mechanism for achieving large-scale archive
> changes isn't presently formally defined at all. Informally, it
> appears to be the exclusive domain of the Debian Archive
> Administrators (who,
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 12:34:31AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 12:22:24PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 08:47:54AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > And Branden, i find that trying to induce your fellow developers in
> > > confusion with a global G
On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 01:16:20PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Why do you believe the editorial-only amendments will be ranked above
> the substantive ones?
On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 11:18:26PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> Can you show a real preference that is best achieved by voting
> insincer
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I *am* making the assumption that a signficant number of voters will, even
> within a slate of options preferred over the do-nothing default, vote
> conservatively.
>
> I ground this on the observation that it's a small number of "movers and
> shaker
On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 01:10:51PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 04:04:05PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Does Branden's pass the supermajority clause? If not, it presumably
> > wouldn't if reasked anyway, and it fails.
> If it does, and is reasked, what's to st
On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 02:19:22PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 10:45:35AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 12:04:38AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 11:10:45PM +0100, Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
> > > > > I am seeking seconds an
On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 05:18:25PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 10:43:18AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > The side effect being that removing the non-free section of our archive
> > will only need a normal GR, or even a decision of the tech comitee,
> > instead of needing
On 2003-10-31 06:17:28 + Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
1) Further clean up the software|work conflation, and replace 'run'
with 'use' or 'be used' and software with 'works' and/or 'software and
other works'
Using "software and other works" either has redundancy or apparently
endors
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, MJ Ray wrote:
> Using "software and other works" either has redundancy or apparently
> endorses the false assertion that software = programs.
I'd personally argue that its merely redundant. However, with the
suggestions as made I don't really see that the assertion that
softw
On Oct 31, 2003, at 02:47, Sven Luther wrote:
archive with only a technical comitee decision or a simple GR.
Why would the technical committee have the power to drop non-free?
Isn't non-free is a political policy, not a technical one?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
Richard Braakman:
> The +(INS|DEL) part means that INS and DEL can occur anywhere in
> a BODY or its children.
Yes, but they can only contain block or inline content, of which LI is
neither. UL can contain an INS, yes, but an INS cannot contain an LI.
validator.w3.org has validates using the SGM
On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 03:44:51PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> and people prefer:
> Editorial defeats No by 300:20
> Editorial defeats Branden's by 170:150
> Branden's defeats No by 170:150
Given we've got the 3:1 supermajority requirement now, a better example would
be:
On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 08:47:54AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> And Branden, i find that trying to induce your fellow developers in
> confusion with a global GR like that
Why are you accusing me of this? I've explained why I feel as I do. Do
you suspect me of insincerity?
Lay your cards on the t
(Or: How You and Five of Your Friends Can Kill Any GR)
On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 04:04:05PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Does Branden's pass the supermajority clause? If not, it presumably
> wouldn't if reasked anyway, and it fails.
If it does, and is reasked, what's to stop a group of
> "Branden" == Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Branden> The only real way out of this, it seems, is to advocate insincere
Branden> voting. ("Please rank Mr. A's editorial-only amendments below 'further
Branden> discussion' even if you like them, because the whole purp
On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 08:51:44AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 05:18:25PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > I expect we'll continue to handle archive organization issues much the
> > same way we always have, unless we decide to change that. But that's
> > orthogonal to my
On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 01:10:51PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> (Or: How You and Five of Your Friends Can Kill Any GR)
>
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 04:04:05PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Does Branden's pass the supermajority clause? If not, it presumably
> > wouldn't if reasked anyw
On Oct 31, 2003, at 13:10, Branden Robinson wrote:
If it does, and is reasked, what's to stop a group of 6 people[1] from
proposing an "amendment" that guts the original proposal down to
nothing
but uncontroversial cosmetic alterations?
Does that really hurt?
Option A: Strike SC 5 (non-f
FUEL SAVER PRO
This revolutionary device Boosts Gas Mileage 27%+ by helping fuel burn better using
three patented processes from General Motors.
Take a test drive Today - http://www.llat.org?axel=49
PROVEN TECHNOLOGY
A certified U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) laboratory recently com
On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 12:22:24PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 08:47:54AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > And Branden, i find that trying to induce your fellow developers in
> > confusion with a global GR like that
>
> Why are you accusing me of this? I've explained why
After some thought, :-) I have concluded that it may be preferable to
separate the proposal to drop Social Contract clause 5 from the other
changes. I, and probably others, care much more about nailing down that
everything in 'main' must follow the DFSG, than about what happens to clause
5, an
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 13:16:54 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> No, you're wrong. The mechanism for achieving large-scale archive
> changes isn't presently formally defined at all. Informally, it
> appears to be the exclusive domain of the Debian Archive
> Administrators (who,
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 12:34:31AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 12:22:24PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 08:47:54AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > And Branden, i find that trying to induce your fellow developers in
> > > confusion with a global G
On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 01:16:20PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Why do you believe the editorial-only amendments will be ranked above
> the substantive ones?
On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 11:18:26PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> Can you show a real preference that is best achieved by voting
> insincer
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I *am* making the assumption that a signficant number of voters will, even
> within a slate of options preferred over the do-nothing default, vote
> conservatively.
>
> I ground this on the observation that it's a small number of "movers and
> shaker
On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 01:10:51PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 04:04:05PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Does Branden's pass the supermajority clause? If not, it presumably
> > wouldn't if reasked anyway, and it fails.
> If it does, and is reasked, what's to st
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 23:18:34 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I *am* making the assumption that a signficant number of voters
> will, even within a slate of options preferred over the do-nothing
> default, vote conservatively.
> I ground this on the observation that it's a sma
45 matches
Mail list logo
