On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 07:53:27PM -0700, Jurij Smakov wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 10:48:10PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> > That said, the kernel team meeting on saturday evening resulted in what will
> > probably be a new proposal, and at the same time a nice summary of the
> > changes. S
On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 12:38:45AM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
> Of course this is your decision, but for the record I would be glad if
> you make use of your Super Powers so that we can vote soon, I do not see
> the need for more discussion.
As per <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on -project, the
minimum d
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 10:09:14AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> I think you're wrong here, unless you're using an unusual definition
>> of "distributable". The usual definition used by debian-legal is "We have
>> explicit leg
On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 10:48:10PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> That said, the kernel team meeting on saturday evening resulted in what will
> probably be a new proposal, and at the same time a nice summary of the
> changes. Stay tuned for more infos.
Sven, nobody besides you on the kernel team s
low the path having the least danger of adverse
> reactions from others, and therefore to vote "further discussion"
> since a yes vote and a further discussion vote, IMO, are logically
> equivalent. Jacobo Tarrío Barreiro sums up my feelings perfectly:
> http://raw-output.org/200
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 13:38:44 -0700, Kevin B McCarty
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> As I understand what's going on, instead of having a single vote
> with all the firmware-related options laid out on the ballot, we are
> apparently going to have a series of votes about related topics (GR
> 2006/004
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 22:03:11 +0200, Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Monday 02 October 2006 21:36, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
>> About the "my vote is on sale" bit: I sell my vote against such a
>> summary. Meaning: If I am satisfied by the summary I will vote how
>> I think best. Otherwise
iscussion" since a yes vote
and a further discussion vote, IMO, are logically equivalent. Jacobo
Tarrío Barreiro sums up my feelings perfectly:
http://raw-output.org/20061002/status-quo-ante-bellum
Do you have an argument to persuade me otherwise?
> Finally, as far as etch is conce
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006, Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
> Regarding the specific ballot on 2006/004, can anyone tell me how
> passing it would change ANYTHING of import, other than annoying one
> of the RMs [1]? Points B and D are "recommends" and "requests" so
> aside from Debian taking a public stand on the
I wrote:
> I am very tempted to vote Further Discussion (with the hope that it will
> actually result in *no* further discussion), as a protest of the mess
> that has been made out of this issue, on all ballots related to firmware.
Just to make things clear, I am in no way blaming the secretary f
On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 09:36:09PM +0200, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> Yodel!
>
> With the first (?) CfV out now about non-free kernel firmwares:
The current GR to vote is nothing but the status quo, so further discussion
will not change anything one way or the other.
That said, the kernel team me
Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> I'm not going to vote, sorry. I don't have the time to wade through tons of
> mailing list archives, of which 1/3 is repetitions of previously made
> statements, 1/3 is presumably flames or close to it, and 1/3 is trivial
> corrections, with the few substantial argum
On Monday 02 October 2006 21:36, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> About the "my vote is on sale" bit: I sell my vote against such a
> summary. Meaning: If I am satisfied by the summary I will vote how I
> think best. Otherwise, I don't intend to vote. I might be biased towards
> what kernel/installer/re
Yodel!
With the first (?) CfV out now about non-free kernel firmwares:
I'm not going to vote, sorry. I don't have the time to wade through tons of
mailing list archives, of which 1/3 is repetitions of previously made
statements, 1/3 is presumably flames or close to it, and 1/3 is trivial
corr
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The work is anthropomorphized there; [...]
Please don't anthropomorphise the work. It hates that.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Le lundi 02 octobre 2006 à 12:10 -0500, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
> A reasonable person might not like what the DPL did,. and
> might not want to support him, but might not consider it warranting a
> recall.
>
> So, a person might want to a) not recall, not affirm,
> b) not r
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 11:22:51 +0200, Gaudenz Steinlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sun, Sep 24, 2006 at 03:07:45PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> As I currently understand it, the position statement GR regarding
>> the project leader and Dunc-Tank has adequate numbers of seconds;
>> and recei
On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 12:17:42AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> == Reaffirm support for Anthony Towns as the Project Leader ==
> The Debian project reaffirms support to Anthony Towns as the Debian
> Project Leader. However, it doesn't endorse nor support any projects Mr
> Towns may lead or pa
> == Reaffirm support for Anthony Towns as the Project Leader ==
>
> The Debian project reaffirms support to Anthony Towns as the Debian
> Project Leader. However, it doesn't endorse nor support any projects Mr
> Towns may lead or participate in outside Debian.
Seconded
--
.''`. Aurelien
On Sun, 01 Oct 2006, Sven Luther wrote:
> i doubt that this was intented, and i am very curious about how such
> a work can indeed be distributing sources.
The work is anthropomorphized there; unless the work is an AI (or has
Affero-like code) it obviously can't do the distribution itself;
agents
20 matches
Mail list logo
