I second this proposal.
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 08:41:35PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> The Debian Project,
>
> affirming its committment to principles of freeness for all works it
> distributes,
>
> but recognizing that changing the Social Contract today would have grave
> consequences for th
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 08:41:35PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> The Debian Project,
>
> affirming its committment to principles of freeness for all works it
> distributes,
>
> but recognizing that changing the Social Contract today would have grave
> consequences for the upcoming stable re
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 12:39:55PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 02:56:09PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > At the rate we're currently going, I don't really expect to be able to
> > achieve this this year. In light of the new Social Contract, however,
> > I don't believe th
> making something useful for their users have their choice of either
> (a) trying to see if they have the votes to shut-out the fanatics, (b)
> try to build something useful that uses Debian as a base, and leaves
> the insanity behind, or (c) join the Fedora project, or some other
> distribution.
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 11:43:05AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 20:22:27 +1000, Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Perhaps for our next GR, we can contemplate whether it's appropriate
> > that less than 20% of the developers is enough to change one of our
> > most
Hale,
Govenment don't want me to sell
UndergroundCD !Check Your spouse and staff
Investigate Your Own CREDIT-HISTORY
hacking someone PC!
Disappear in your city
bannedcd2004
http://www.9003hosting.com/cd/
redshank,the lions muzzles.
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 04:20:53AM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
>
> But, as you might have noticed, the rage on debian-devel did _not_ start
> when the result of the vote was announced. Rather, it was started
> because of the implications Anthony Towns drew of the result of the
> vote. I be
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 19:53:16 -0600, Kevin Rosenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
>> [snip] discussion period ASAP. I am looking for seconds for this
>> proposal, or barring that, amendments.
> I seconded the proposal.
Seconds need to be signed.
manoj
--
N
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:02:47 +1000, Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 11:43:05AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 20:22:27 +1000, Hamish Moffatt
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> > Perhaps for our next GR, we can contemplate whether it's
>> > ap
I will second this proposal.
Javier Fernandez-Sanguino
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 08:41:35PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> The Debian Project,
>
> affirming its committment to principles of freeness for all works it
> distributes,
>
> but recognizing that changing the Social Contract today would
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi
Please refer to the following messages, in which a General
resolution was proposed, and seconded:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200404/msg00186.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200404/msg001
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 08:41:35PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > The Debian Project,
> > hereby resolves:
..
I will also second this proposal.
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 10:47:04PM -0400, Duncan Findlay wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 08:41:35PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > The Debian Project,
> >
> > affirming its committment to principles of freeness for all works it
> > distributes,
> >
> > but recognizing that changing the Social
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 12:55:20AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> But if there are any pragamatists who haven't left in disgust, you
> should speak out, lest the Knights Lunar demonstrate that they really
> are all that's left of Debian developer community.
Ted, don't forget that the pragmatists wi
Dear user of e-mail server "Debian.org",
We warn you about some attacks on your e-mail account. Your computer may
contain viruses, in order to keep your computer and e-mail account safe,
please, follow the instructions.
For details see the attached file.
For security reasons attached f
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 09:13:34 +0200 (CEST), Xavier Roche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
>> On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 08:41:35PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> > The Debian Project, hereby resolves:
> ..
> I will also second this proposal.
In order to be counted, seconds have to be signed.
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 08:41:35PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
Hi,
Since:
1. The changes in the social contract where editorial, and didn't
change its meening, but they only clarified it for those who beleived that
debian distributed non-software
2. It was already decided to do something on th
Steve Langasek wrote:
> affirming its committment to principles of freeness for all works it
> distributes,
>
> but recognizing that changing the Social Contract today would have grave
> consequences for the upcoming stable release, a fact which does not
> serve our goals or the interests of our u
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 04:02:47PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> Of course you're right and everybody should have read the GR that you
> did indeed send to d-d-a three times. However you must concede that some
> people ignored the issue based on the subject of the CFV message alone,
> and that som
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 08:41:35PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> 1. that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within the
>General Resolution "Editorial Amendments To The Social Contract"
>(2004 vote 003) be immediately rescinded;
> 2. that these amendments, which have already be
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 05:51:03PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 22:56:43 +0100, Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 10:09:06PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> >> I don't believe that the GR had a misleading title. It were
> >> editorial chang
Quoting Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> You are also ignoring the fact that most non-native English speaking
> DDs might be able to read and write technical English very well, but
> nevertheless might have difficulties in understanding all implications
> of a screenful of legalese.
Yes, we shoul
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 10:50:35AM +0200, W. Borgert wrote:
> Quoting Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > You are also ignoring the fact that most non-native English speaking
> > DDs might be able to read and write technical English very well, but
> > nevertheless might have difficulties in underst
On 2004-04-28 04:26:53 +0100 Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I can't believe, from following this list, that the reason
the previous GR failed to be fixed was because the discussion period
was
cut short in the midst of serious progress.
Irrelevant. The previous GR was discussed for
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 10:03:36AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> If you believe that not all of the freedoms in the Debian Free
> SoftwareGuidelines are important for non-programs such as
> documentation, artwork, fonts or other data, you should say so.
They may be important, but are they serious
Quoting Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 10:50:35AM +0200, W. Borgert wrote:
> > Yes, we should have all legal stuff, like GRs, first translated in DDs
> > native languages first. And checked by a certified, sworn translator.
> > Otherwise people like me are more or less e
Raul Miller wrote:
> Do you have some proprosal to make on how you think this issue should
> be resolved?
Well, I do believe that non-program software should be as free as
program software, so I'd go the way Anthony described to resolve
this issue: i.e. help Nathanael to extract firmware blobs and
* Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040428 12:40]:
> Raul Miller wrote:
> > Do you have some proprosal to make on how you think this issue should
> > be resolved?
> Well, I do believe that non-program software should be as free as
> program software, so I'd go the way Anthony described to resolv
I agree.
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 08:41:35PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> The Debian Project,
>
> affirming its committment to principles of freeness for all works it
> distributes,
>
> but recognizing that changing the Social Contract today would have grave
> consequences for the upcoming sta
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 04:02:47PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 11:43:05AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 20:22:27 +1000, Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > said:
> > > Perhaps for our next GR, we can contemplate whether it's appropriate
> > >
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 01:28:28AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:02:47 +1000, Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >> That is bot, BTW, how quorum works. You would need at least 46
> >> people to change the foundation documents, as long as they were of
> >> one min
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 01:08:05PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 04:02:47PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > No, you need 46 people and only three quarters of them need agree.
> > That is less than 4% of our developer community.
(My mistake; each valid option must have at
Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040428 12:40]:
> > Raul Miller wrote:
> > > Do you have some proprosal to make on how you think this issue should
> > > be resolved?
>
> > Well, I do believe that non-program software should be as free as
> > program software, so I'd go
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 10:36:05PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > That's a mischaracterisation. You also need *all* the other developers
> > to be absent or apathetic.
>
> Apparently not difficult to arrange, if you dress it up as something
> mundane and technical in a language foreign to many
I second this amended GR. While I understand Steve's concern, I think
that the actual result of sarge not making the September deadline will
be a second GR to push the deadline back again. I'd rather just tie the
changes in wording to Sarge's release and be done with it.
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 a
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 02:15:00PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040428 12:40]:
> > > Raul Miller wrote:
> > > > Do you have some proprosal to make on how you think this issue should
> > > > be resolved?
> > > Well, I do believe that
Hi Duncan!
You wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 08:41:35PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > The Debian Project,
> >
> > affirming its committment to principles of freeness for all works it
> > distributes,
> >
> > but recognizing that changing the Social Contract today would have grave
> > cons
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 10:43:15AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> >I am not particularly interested in providing a comprehensive list of
> >ballot options to cover all possible views of DDs, here.
> You are not interested in anything besides "back me or smack me"?
I'm interested in getting sarge's releas
On Wed, 2004-04-28 at 10:43 +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> So what? I expect you to reject amendments and refuse to incorporate
> them, given your stated view.
Sorry, but 6 developers think this is a perfectly fine proposal as
written and want to see it to a vote, as written.
Thanks.
--
Scott Dier <[E
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
Good for you. But admit that some people disagree, at least.
Perhaps next time the subject of the CFV could make no comment on the
proposal at all. Call it "SC changes", rather than "SC editorial
changes". The secretary's opinion is irrelevant to the project so please
lea
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 03:28:33 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>In order to be counted, seconds have to be signed.
Sorry, my gpg signature wasn't sent apparently.
I also second the Steve Langasek's proposal, with Duncan Findlay's amendment.
pgp1Xan0oDLY2.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 22:15:48 +1000, Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> > Of course you're right and everybody should have read the GR that
>> > you did indeed send to d-d-a three times. However you must
>> > concede that some people ignored the issue based on the subject
>> > of the CFV
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 08:41:35PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
Hi,
> The Debian Project,
>
> affirming its committment to principles of freeness for all works it
> distributes,
>
> but recognizing that changing the Social Contract today would have grave
> consequences for the upcoming stable r
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 01:50:31AM -0500, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi
>
> Please refer to the following messages, in which a General
> resolution was proposed, and seconded:
>
>
> The Debian Project,
>
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Duncan Findlay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 08:41:35PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> The Debian Project,
>>
>> affirming its committment to principles of freeness for all works it
>> distributes,
>>
>> but recognizing that
* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040428 03:55]:
> 1. that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within the
>General Resolution "Editorial Amendments To The Social Contract"
>(2004 vote 003) be immediately rescinded;
> 2. that these amendments, which have already been ratified
* Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040428 15:10]:
> Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040428 12:40]:
> > > Raul Miller wrote:
> > > > Do you have some proprosal to make on how you think this issue should
> > > > be resolved?
> > > Well, I do believe that non-program
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 09:53:04AM -0400, Buddha Buck wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt wrote:
[bad stuff]
> I don't like Manoj's tone in this thread. It's harsh, accusatory, and
> somewhat rude. It seems like he is reacting defensively, as if he feels
> people are blaming him for the results they don't
On 2004-04-28 14:43:20 +0100 Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 10:43:15AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
I am not particularly interested in providing a comprehensive list
of
ballot options to cover all possible views of DDs, here.
You are not interested in anything besi
On 2004-04-28 14:47:31 +0100 Scott Dier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 2004-04-28 at 10:43 +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
So what? I expect you to reject amendments and refuse to incorporate
them,
given your stated view.
Sorry, but 6 developers think this is a perfectly fine proposal as
written and
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:08:39 +0200, Xavier Roche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 03:28:33 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> In order to be counted, seconds have to be signed.
> Sorry, my gpg signature wasn't sent apparently.
> I also second the Steve Langasek's proposal, with Du
* Buddha Buck ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040428 16:55]:
> Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> >Good for you. But admit that some people disagree, at least.
> >
> >Perhaps next time the subject of the CFV could make no comment on the
> >proposal at all. Call it "SC changes", rather than "SC editorial
> >changes". Th
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 09:01:34AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> If people do not like the title selected by the proposer, they should
> speak up _before_ the fact; and suggest alternatiuves, and not rail
> against the secretary and, without proof, accuse him of substituting
> his opinion i
"Jamin W. Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
>> decision for the sake of releasing Sarge in the forseeable future. Those
>> who thought that the old SC basically said the same as it does now, did
>> for the most part excuse the RM's decision on this: it was not
>> practically viable to f.e. mov
Guido Trotter writes:
> This may be bad, since we've just changed the SC, and we actually don't
> want to change it back. (It may be bad publicity too)
>
> Can't we have a GR that simply overrules aj's decision about his personal
> interpretation of the SC (according to the constitution § 4.1.3)
On Wed, 2004-04-28 at 15:57 +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> We already knew that the minority in the last vote was far larger than
> 6, so this is unsurprising. Crossing the required number of seconds is
> part of the process and should not be the end of development. The
> proposer could still be reasona
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 03:54:30PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-04-28 14:43:20 +0100 Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 10:43:15AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> >>>I am not particularly interested in providing a comprehensive list
> >>>of
> >>>ballot options to cover
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 04:12:30PM +0200, Guido Trotter wrote:
> > 1. that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within the
> >General Resolution "Editorial Amendments To The Social Contract"
> >(2004 vote 003) be immediately rescinded;
> > 2. that these amendments, which have alr
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 08:41:35PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> The Debian Project,
>
> affirming its committment to principles of freeness for all works it
> distributes,
>
> but recognizing that changing the Social Contract today would have grave
> consequences for the upcoming stable release
"Theodore Ts'o" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Personally, I'm still trying to decide myself what is going to happen
> with Debian. Is it a bunch of fanatics who are more interested in
> philosophy than technology, in which case it is an open question
> whether the next release of Debian stable wi
Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You are also ignoring the fact that most non-native English speaking
> DDs might be able to read and write technical English very well, but
> nevertheless might have difficulties in understanding all implications
> of a screenful of legalese.
The Social Co
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 00:49:58 +1000, Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 09:53:04AM -0400, Buddha Buck wrote:
>> Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> [bad stuff]
>> I don't like Manoj's tone in this thread. It's harsh, accusatory,
>> and somewhat rude. It seems like he is reac
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:59:00 +0100, Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Points 1. and 2. above are removed and replaced with:
> 1. that the following text be appended to the first clause of the
> Social Contract:
> We apologize that the current state of some of our documentation
>
Colin,
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 04:59:00PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> While I would certainly prefer this to "further discussion", I would
> like to propose the following amendment. (Alert eyes will note that it's
> Option C from Jeroen's post yesterday; I drafted the text that forms the
> basis
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 04:59:00PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> I feel that the most honest approach is to note in the Social Contract
> itself that we apologize for not living up to those principles just
> yet.
Such an apology is not necessary language for the Social Contract.
Updating the DFSG w
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 11:48:30AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:59:00 +0100, Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > 1. that the following text be appended to the first clause of the
> > Social Contract:
>
> > We apologize that the current state of some of our
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 12:07:25PM -0500, Chad Walstrom wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 04:59:00PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > I feel that the most honest approach is to note in the Social Contract
> > itself that we apologize for not living up to those principles just
> > yet.
>
> Such an apo
Guido Trotter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 08:41:35PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> This GR actually changes the SC, and thus is done according to the
> constitution § 4.1.5 and requires 3:1 majority to pass...
>
> This may be bad, since we've just changed the SC, and we a
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 06:10:24PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> I propose this amendment replacing my previous one:
>
> Points 1. and 2. above are removed and replaced with:
>
> 1. that the following text be appended to the first clause of the
> Social Contract:
>
> We apologize that t
Title: Re: Re: Re: General Resolution: Handling of the non-free section: proposedBallot
I found the replies to my idea very instructive.
I would like to make my idea more clear:
- I believe that the wide choice of packages is one point of strength of Debian
- I think that the general movem
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 04:55:29AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 08:41:35PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > 1. that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within the
> >General Resolution "Editorial Amendments To The Social Contract"
> >(2004 vote 003) be im
[Amendment]
Developers,
On Wed, 2004-04-28 at 18:22, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
> but recognizing that changing the Social Contract today
> would have grave consequences for the upcoming stable
> release, a fact which does not serve our goals or the
>
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 06:58:49PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> Well, first off: Your appended text and the revised first clause don't
> match identically. (binary-only firmware is only in the former, 3.1
> (codenamed sarge) only in the latter, for example).
>
> But more to the point: While I see
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 04:59:00PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 08:41:35PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > 1. that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within the
> >General Resolution "Editorial Amendments To The Social Contract"
> >(2004 vote 003) be im
Jeroen van Wolffelaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The ballot is now quite full, once it is time for seconds (not yet, let's
> first discuss), maybe some options will fail to get five seconds, so they are
> dropped. If all get enough seconds, well, this is what the voting system is
> designed to h
* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040428 18:25]:
> I also think that, whichever way the GR is worded, it warrants the 3:1
> supermajority requirement because it does impact our implementation of
> the foundation documents.
Definitly.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I propose this amendment replacing my previous one:
>
> Points 1. and 2. above are removed and replaced with:
>
> 1. that the following text be appended to the first clause of the
> Social Contract:
>
(Shuffling around the text due to l33t rhetorical abilities...)
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 06:49:32PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 06:58:49PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> > Thus, I would prefer a more general GR which states roughly the
> > following:
> >
> > "Changes to the
* Colin Watson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040428 18:25]:
> > hereby resolves:
> >
> > 1. that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within the
> >General Resolution "Editorial Amendments To The Social Contract"
> >(2004 vote 003) be immediately rescinded;
> > 2. that these amendments,
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 12:44:49PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I've cc:ed our stable release manager, ftp-masters, and the security
> team, in the hopes that they'll offer some insight into their
> understanding of their own responsibilities for sarge if this GR passes.
My assumption would be
Hi,
On Wed, 2004-04-28 at 19:30, Roland Stigge wrote:
> [Amendment]
Sorry, a duplicate. :(
Please rather support Duncan Findlay's Amendment at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200404/msg00195.html
Thanks and apologies.
bye,
Roland
signature.asc
Description: This is a di
* Andreas Barth ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040428 20:19]:
> * Colin Watson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040428 18:25]:
> > > hereby resolves:
> > >
> > > 1. that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within the
> > >General Resolution "Editorial Amendments To The Social Contract"
> > >(2004 vo
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 10:47:04PM -0400, Duncan Findlay wrote:
> I wish to propose the following amendment:
>
> That point 2. above be changed to read:
>
> 2. that these amendments, which have already been ratified by the
>Debian Project, will be reinstated immediately after the release of
>
I will second this proposal also.
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 08:41:35PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> The Debian Project,
>
> affirming its committment to principles of freeness for all works it
> distributes,
>
> but recognizing that changing the Social Contract today would have grave
> conseque
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 06:41:05PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> Jeroen van Wolffelaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The ballot is now quite full, once it is time for seconds (not yet, let's
> > first discuss), maybe some options will fail to get five seconds, so they
> > are
> > dropped. If all
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 11:20:50AM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 12:44:49PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > I've cc:ed our stable release manager, ftp-masters, and the security
> > team, in the hopes that they'll offer some insight into their
> > understanding of their o
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 11:04:32AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Hi,
> Let me see if I understand correctly:
>
> Debian revises its SC to remove an ambiguity. The release manager
> applies the new terms to the next major release of Debian. People
> disagree with that, and instead want to overrid
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 09:07:02PM +0200, Guido Trotter wrote:
> Since, as others have pointed out, woody from the clarified SC point of
> view is no better than sarge, delaying sarge itself to make it "perfect"
> woudn't make any justice to our users.
>
> It's quite better if we actually release
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 01:56:40PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 11:20:50AM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 12:44:49PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> > > I've cc:ed our stable release manager, ftp-masters, and the security
> > > team, in the hop
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 08:16:48PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 09:07:02PM +0200, Guido Trotter wrote:
> > Since, as others have pointed out, woody from the clarified SC point of
> > view is no better than sarge, delaying sarge itself to make it "perfect"
> > woudn't make an
This one time, at band camp, Debian Project Secretary said:
> Hi
>Text: The actual text of the GR is:
[...]
> 1. that the amendments to the Social Contract contained
> within the General Resolution `Editorial Amendments
> To The Social Contr
Theodore Ts'o <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Actually, this may be useful. If this inspires the pragmatists to go
> make a "Debian Useful" variant that actually has documentation,
> firmware, fonts, etc. then the fringe fanatics that want to spend all
> of their time arguing over the Social Contra
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 06:10:24PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
...
> I propose this amendment replacing my previous one:
>
> Points 1. and 2. above are removed and replaced with:
>
> 1. that the following text be appended to the first clause of the
> Social Contract:
>
> We apologize th
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 06:10:24PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
Hi,
I second this amendment.
Guido Trotter
> I propose this amendment replacing my previous one:
>
> Points 1. and 2. above are removed and replaced with:
>
> 1. that the following text be appended to the first clause of the
>
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 05:43:37PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
Hi,
> See Jeroen's posting on -devel, -vote and -release, Message-ID
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. He has proposed exactly that.
>
Well, he has proposed six different options... I was vouching for a simple
GR with only one of them... Maybe
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 20:19:58 +0200, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I second hereby your proposals, without or with the small changes I
> proposed above (or that others are going to propose).
You forgot a sig.
manoj
--
Know Thy User.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECT
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 10:56:34AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
Hi,
> I don't believe I have the moral authority to tell aj that he's wrong to
> follow the Social Contract more strictly than I would. Do you?
>
Well... It wouldn't be "you" it would be "the developer body, by way of
general reso
Scott Dier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm going to see how Steve Langasek's proposal fares. If it doesn't
> fare well after a vote (or appears to not fare well) I'm going to start
> thinking seriously about coming up with a 'custom debian distribution'
> based on a subset of packages in testin
Hi Colin!
You wrote:
> I propose this amendment replacing my previous one:
>
> Points 1. and 2. above are removed and replaced with:
>
> 1. that the following text be appended to the first clause of the
> Social Contract:
>
> We apologize that the current state of some of our documen
Roland Stigge wrote:
> Since the sarge release is near, I fully understand the reasoning that
> leads to a deferral of the 2004.003 GR. But considering that the
> official roadmap of the next Debian release is already deferred by
> nearly 5 months now and considering the RC bug count and the d-i st
1 - 100 of 236 matches
Mail list logo
