On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 03:42:43PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> I believe the DFSG should ensure equality of access to works in
> Debian. Thus it is my opinion that all items in the DFSG should apply
> to the contents of all source and binary packages in Debian main and
> that we should amend the DFSG
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> You mean you want to go through GR 2004_003 *again*?
That GR passed and was about the SC, not the DFSG. Personally I think
it was a mistake to not change the terminology used in the DFSG at the
same time as changing the terminology in the
Hi list,
I'm sorry to be doing this in the middle of campaigning, but this will
come to a vote pretty soon, and I don't think I want to wait until it's
too late. Candidates can ignore this (unless they want to comment, of
course).
I'd like to propose a rationale for option one on the ballot, if I
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 03:25:46PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>
> > You mean you want to go through GR 2004_003 *again*?
>
> That GR passed and was about the SC, not the DFSG. Personally I think
> it was a mistake to not change the terminolog
What if the DPL begins to consider persistent disagreement with the
DPL as a form of "flaming"?
- "Wouter Verhelst" wrote:
> I'd like to propose a rationale for option one on the ballot, if I
> may:
>
> Rationale:
> Allowing the DPL to update the Code of Conduct will make it easier
> to
>
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 3:40 PM, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> We have a consensus now that everything in Debian should be free,
> even those parts that some don't consider to be "software".
I agree with the rest of your post but I don't think we actually have
consensus here.
--
bye,
pabs
http://wi
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 02:45:10AM -0500, Ean Schuessler wrote:
> What if the DPL begins to consider persistent disagreement with the
> DPL as a form of "flaming"?
We can then override the DPL's decision, or recall the DPL.
Also, there is a second option on the ballot. You don't have to agree wit
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 08:40:52AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> My point is that that GR was highly divisive, and had far-reaching
> repercussions beyond what the original proposers had expected. We have a
> consensus now that everything in Debian should be free, even those parts
> that some don
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Georges Khaznadar
* Package name: geophar
Version : 13.04.5
Upstream Author : Nicolas Pourcelot
* URL : http://sourceforge.net/projects/geophar/
* License : GPL-2+
Programming Lang: Python
Description : Swiss arm
On 22/03/14 at 15:42 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> To the candidates,
>
> Some parts of the DFSG seem like they do not apply to some types of
> works. In particular, items 2, 6, 7 and 8 seem to not apply to things
> that are not "programs". Much of the DFSG doesn't seem to apply to
> things that are n
Hi Paul,
On 22/03/14 at 17:43 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> To the candidates,
>
> Which packages from Debian contrib/non-free do you use or have installed?
Without trying to get a cleaner sheet first, vrms says:
Firmwares, documentation (make-doc, manpages-posix{,-dev}), rar (I had
to open a RAR 3.
Hi!
[short version: The Code of Conduct should be vastly rewritten. Yes,
*before* voting on it]
A few days ago, i saw the proposal for a Code of Conduct. First I was
very glad, then I read it and was perplexed. I made some research, which
confirmed my suspicion: the Code of Conduct that is actual
Hi Solveig,
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 02:31:54AM +, Solveig wrote:
> [short version: The Code of Conduct should be vastly rewritten. Yes,
> *before* voting on it]
> A few days ago, i saw the proposal for a Code of Conduct. First I was
> very glad, then I read it and was perplexed. I made some r
13 matches
Mail list logo
