Hello,
On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 10:19:40PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> ,
> | 1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
> | community (Social Contract #4);
> | 2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress in the kernel
> | firmware issue; howeve
Martin Schulze wrote:
> > > Technically, if Aj is deposed, steve will be as well. And as I
said,
> > > if Aj is retiring from dunc-tank, then Steve's position has to be
> > > clarified in a second stage IMHO yes. Nothing has been done
"against"
> > > Steve's position as DPL-Assistant, especial
On Sun, Sep 24, 2006 at 03:07:45PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As I currently understand it, the position statement GR
> regarding the project leader and Dunc-Tank has adequate numbers of
> seconds; and received enough seconds on the 21st of September.
>
> This is a
On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 08:21:21AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> Two questions here.
> First, this means that this proposal needs seconds, right ? Or can Frederik
> just incorporate it into his proposal ?
Frederik does have the option of incorporating it into his proposal, in
which case all of the
Hello,
On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 04:02:11PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> As I mentioned previously, I don't think point 3. here is the compromise I
> would like to see. "Without further conditions" is so broad that it seems
> to even *require* us to include firmware in main that lacks any sort of
On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 02:06:50AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 08:21:21AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Two questions here.
>
> > First, this means that this proposal needs seconds, right ? Or can Frederik
> > just incorporate it into his proposal ?
>
> Frederik does ha
On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 11:36:37AM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 04:02:11PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > As I mentioned previously, I don't think point 3. here is the compromise I
> > would like to see. "Without further conditions" is so broad that it se
Le mardi 26 septembre 2006 à 17:46 -0500, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
> > I know I'm nitpicking, but isn't this whole thread about nitpicking?
> > ;)
>
> I don't know about you, bit for me this thread is about
> getting the right thing done, and getting the general resolutions
> resolved.
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 08:45:14AM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
>> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > I am asking Frederik to accept this
>> > amendment, failing which, I am also seeking formal seconds for this.
>>
>> I would prefer that F
On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 12:39:57PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 08:45:14AM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> >> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > I am asking Frederik to accept this
> >> > amendment, failing wh
Frederik Schueler wrote:
> this means we actually have to review all licenses before the release,
Indeed, I have been under the impression that *every* maintainer must
*always* check that *all* the files they are packaging are properly
licensed and distributable by Debian. I must have been wrong?
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> | as long as we are legally allowed to do so, and the formware is
> | distributed under a DFSG free license.
This needs to be made clearer.
I assume that your intention is to say "GPL'd (or otherwise DFSG-free
licensed) firmware without source is allowed, but e
Le mer 27 septembre 2006 14:16, BALLABIO GERARDO a écrit :
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > | as long as we are legally allowed to do so, and the formware
> > | is distributed under a DFSG free license.
>
> This needs to be made clearer.
>
> I assume that your intention is to say "GPL'd (or other
Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> It seems that your MUA does use neither In-Reply-To: nor References:
> headers. That breaks threads and makes a lot of noise. Please change
> your MUA (or MTA? as it seems that's because your mail goes through
> Exchange), or stop posting here. That makes your mails espe
On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 11:36:37AM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 04:02:11PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > As I mentioned previously, I don't think point 3. here is the compromise I
> > would like to see. "Without further conditions" is so broad that it se
On 2006-09-27, Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 11:36:37AM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote:
>> 2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress in the kernel firmware
>> issue; however, it is not yet finally sorted out;
>
> So, what progress has been made?
All firmw
Hi,
I was not aware that Frederik's proposal was for the Debian
project to give carte blanche to the kernel team to distribute
whatever the upstream kernel has, even if it is a major regression in
the freedom from the kernel released in Sarge.
Indeed, not agreeing to only distr
Hello,
On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 12:36:56PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> ,
> | 1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
> | community (Social Contract #4);
> | 2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress in the kernel
> | firmware issue; however, i
On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 12:36:56PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> ,
> | 1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
> | community (Social Contract #4);
> | 2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress in the kernel
> | firmware issue; however, it is not
On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 12:36:56PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> ,
> | 1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
> | community (Social Contract #4);
> | 2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress in the kernel
> | firmware issue; however, it is not
On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 09:53:58PM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote:
> > ,
> > | 1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
> > | community (Social Contract #4);
> > | 2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress in the kernel
> > | firmware issue; howeve
On 9/26/06, Denis Barbier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 09:02:19PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> I don't understand how this proposal answers the question.
>
> One answer implied by your proposal: "Dunc-tank is
> grounds for removing Debian's leader, that means it
> is a debia
22 matches
Mail list logo
