Le samedi 02 mai 2009 à 08:04 +0200, Mike Hommey a écrit :
> On Sat, May 02, 2009 at 12:10:26AM +0200, Joey Schulze wrote:
> > I would rather like to keep binary firmware blobs outside of Debian/main
> > and maintain them in Debian/non-free with improved and easy ways to load
> > them during the in
On Fri May 01 16:16, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 11:54:15PM +0100, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> > On Sat May 02 00:52, Luk Claes wrote:
> > > It would be a clear indication that the foundation document should get an
> > > update or that the postition statement should get dropped ag
Matthew Johnson writes:
> On Fri May 01 16:16, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > No one has the authority to declare, a priori, for the entire
> > project, that a given position statement is in conflict with a FD.
This seems to advocate the possibility that a statement could be in
conflict with the foun
On Sat, May 02 2009, Ben Finney wrote:
> That doesn't mean we can't make the explicit expectation that everyone
> in the group *will* uphold it, as a condition of being in the group.
>
> I had thought that expectation was embodied in the requirement for all
> new members to declare they will uphol
Ben Finney writes:
> Matthew Johnson writes:
>> On Fri May 01 16:16, Steve Langasek wrote:
>>> No one has the authority to declare, a priori, for the entire
>>> project, that a given position statement is in conflict with a FD.
> This seems to advocate the possibility that a statement could be
Matthew Johnson writes:
> I think that is somewhat of an orthogonal issue. I don't think anyone
> would disagree that the vote:
>
>We agree to ship the nvidia binary drivers in main
>
> conflicts with one of the foundation documents. At the moment, however,
> we could run that vote and since
On Sat, May 02, 2009 at 07:10:07AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> The Debian project believes that shipping NVidia drivers in main is
> consistent with the current DFSG and Social Contract.
>
> If you think there's any serious danger of that passing with a majority,
> I would contend that yo
On Sat May 02 07:10, Russ Allbery wrote:
> To recap, the counter-argument is that such a *non-binding* position
> statement is obviously nonsensical and hence people aren't going to
> follow it even if it passes, which it won't because it's non-sensical.
> In other words, you're making a reductio a
Clint Adams writes:
> On Sat, May 02, 2009 at 07:10:07AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> The Debian project believes that shipping NVidia drivers in main is
>> consistent with the current DFSG and Social Contract.
>> If you think there's any serious danger of that passing with a
>> majorit
On Sat, May 02 2009, s...@powerlinux.fr wrote:
> On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 05:26:37PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 01 May 2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> > On Fri, May 01 2009, Don Armstrong wrote:
>> > > Only as binding as we as a group consider them to be.
>> >
>> > Hmm. Certainly
On Sat, May 02 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Clint Adams writes:
>> On Sat, May 02, 2009 at 07:10:07AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
>>> The Debian project believes that shipping NVidia drivers in main is
>>> consistent with the current DFSG and Social Contract.
>
>>> If you think there's an
Russ Allbery writes:
> Ben Finney writes:
> > Are you saying the statement “this proposal conflicts with the
> > foundation documents” can be true for some people simultaneously
> > with being false for other people?
>
> Of course it can be! That would only not be true if we had unanimity
> ov
Ben Finney writes:
> Russ Allbery writes:
>> Ben Finney writes:
>>> Are you saying the statement “this proposal conflicts with the
>>> foundation documents” can be true for some people simultaneously
>>> with being false for other people?
>> Of course it can be! That would only not be true if
Matthew Johnson writes:
> I was trying to demonstrate that there are things which are in
> conflict with a foundation document and that something needs to be
> done about vote options which are such conflicts but don't explicitly
> amend that document.
Oh, okay, sorry. Yes, I do agree with that
Russ Allbery writes:
> Ben Finney writes:
> > Russ Allbery writes:
> >> Ben Finney writes:
>
> >>> Are you saying the statement “this proposal conflicts with the
> >>> foundation documents” can be true for some people simultaneously
> >>> with being false for other people?
>
> >> Of course i
Ben Finney writes:
> Russ Allbery writes:
>> Ben Finney writes:
>>> Russ Allbery writes:
>>> So, in effect, you advocate the position that “the foundation
>>> documents”refers to a different set of documents depending on who
>>> is being asked?
>> No. That's an absurd interpretation of what
16 matches
Mail list logo
