Le jeudi, 8 septembre 2022, 07.14:09 h CEST Russ Allbery a écrit :
> Didier 'OdyX' Raboud writes:
> > Thanks for that proposal Russ!
> >
> > While we're at updating the Social Contract's article 5, what about a
> > more invasive cleanup, to reflect reality ?
>
> [...]
>
> > What about this (whi
Didier 'OdyX' Raboud writes:
> Thanks for that proposal Russ!
> While we're at updating the Social Contract's article 5, what about a
> more invasive cleanup, to reflect reality ?
[...]
> What about this (which adds the non-free-firmware area, replaces "CD
> manufacturers" with "installation m
Thanks for that proposal Russ!
While we're at updating the Social Contract's article 5, what about a more
invasive cleanup, to reflect reality ?
Le mercredi, 7 septembre 2022, 19.48:36 h CEST Russ Allbery a écrit :
> --
>
>
Steve McIntyre writes:
> On Wed, Sep 07, 2022 at 11:38:33AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Ansgar writes:
>>> One suggestion: if we modify the Social Contract then we can as well
>>> include "non-free-firmware" explicitly as well, i.e., replace
>>> We have created "contrib" and "non-free" ar
Simon Richter writes:
> I agree that from a practical standpoint, this is unlikely to be a
> problem. The new language for the DSC also solves the conflict, but it
> is a regression for user -- before, anything "official" could always be
> redistributed because it had to fulfill the DFSG in order
Hi Russ,
On 9/7/22 21:58, Russ Allbery wrote:
Simon Richter writes:
Do users have the right to redistribute the installer?
In this proposal it's left unspecified (in other words, it's not an
inherent position of the Social Contract one way or the other), mostly
because I'm trying to keep
On Wed, 2022-09-07 at 20:31 +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
> The Debian project is permitted to make distribution media (installer images
> and live images) containing non-free software from the Debian archive
> available
> for download alongside with the free media in a way that the user is informed
On Wed, Sep 07, 2022 at 11:38:33AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>Ansgar writes:
>
>> Seconded.
>
>> One suggestion: if we modify the Social Contract then we can as well
>> include "non-free-firmware" explicitly as well, i.e., replace
>
>> We have created "contrib" and "non-free" areas in our arc
On Wed, Sep 07, 2022 at 10:48:36AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>Between one thing and another I've not been tracking the timeline of this
>vote and I'm worried we may be out of time for new ballot options and
>possibly extensions.
>
>(As promised in the previous vote for changing the timing of GRs,
On Wed, Sep 07, 2022 at 08:31:34PM +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
>On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 11:00:25PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>> I think the problem is with "non-free section". I think Steve looks at
>> that like the non-free-firmware section is now allowed. I suggest you
>s/now/not/
>> just rewrite
On Wed, Sep 07, 2022 at 06:26:29PM +0200, Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) wrote:
>Dear Debian Secretary and Debian Developers
>
>As per the Debian Constitution[1] (4.2¶3), I'm requesting an extension for
>the discussion period of 7 days.
>
>Apologies for jumping this on the last minute, I've been off
On Wed, Sep 07, 2022 at 08:24:33AM +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
>On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 11:00:25PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>>
>> I think the problem is with "non-free section". I think Steve looks at
>> that like the non-free-firmware section is now allowed. I suggest you
>> just rewrite it as: "
Hello
El 7/9/22 a las 20:31, Bart Martens escribió:
On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 11:00:25PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
I think the problem is with "non-free section". I think Steve looks at
that like the non-free-firmware section is now allowed. I suggest you
s/now/not/
just rewrite it as: "contain
Simon Richter writes:
> Seconded.
> Do users have the right to redistribute the installer?
In this proposal it's left unspecified (in other words, it's not an
inherent position of the Social Contract one way or the other), mostly
because I'm trying to keep the change as simple as possible and
r
On Wed, Sep 07, 2022 at 10:48:36AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Between one thing and another I've not been tracking the timeline of this
> vote and I'm worried we may be out of time for new ballot options and
> possibly extensions.
>
> (As promised in the previous vote for changing the timing of
Hi,
On 9/7/22 13:48, Russ Allbery wrote:
Between one thing and another I've not been tracking the timeline of this
vote and I'm worried we may be out of time for new ballot options and
possibly extensions.
(As promised in the previous vote for changing the timing of GRs, I've
been watching the
Hi,
On 9/7/22 19:48, Russ Allbery wrote:
--
This ballot option supersedes the Debian Social Contract (a foundation
document) under point 4.1.5 of the constitution and thus requires a 3:1
majority.
The Debian Social Contra
Quoting Bart Martens (2022-09-07 20:31:34)
> On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 11:00:25PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > I think the problem is with "non-free section". I think Steve looks at
> > that like the non-free-firmware section is now allowed. I suggest you
> s/now/not/
> > just rewrite it as: "contai
Richard Laager writes:
> The Project Leader has extended the discussion period (at least the
> maximum, maybe it's ambiguous on an extension of the minimum, but that
> is likely moot) by 7 days. By my reading of the constitution, this only
> extends the possible maximum. To actually get that time
Ansgar writes:
> Seconded.
> One suggestion: if we modify the Social Contract then we can as well
> include "non-free-firmware" explicitly as well, i.e., replace
> We have created "contrib" and "non-free" areas in our archive for
> these works.
> by
> We have created "contrib", "n
On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 11:00:25PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> I think the problem is with "non-free section". I think Steve looks at
> that like the non-free-firmware section is now allowed. I suggest you
s/now/not/
> just rewrite it as: "containing non-free software from the Debian
> archive".
H
Russ Allbery writes:
> Possible wording, which includes the existing option A verbatim:
>
> --
>
> This ballot option supersedes the Debian Social Contract (a foundation
> document) under point 4.1.5 of the constitution and thu
I like the existence of such an option.
Seconded.
The Project Leader has extended the discussion period (at least the
maximum, maybe it's ambiguous on an extension of the minimum, but that
is likely moot) by 7 days. By my reading of the constitution, this only
extends the possible maximum. To
Between one thing and another I've not been tracking the timeline of this
vote and I'm worried we may be out of time for new ballot options and
possibly extensions.
(As promised in the previous vote for changing the timing of GRs, I've
been watching the timing closely and the last couple have felt
Dear Debian Secretary and Debian Developers
As per the Debian Constitution[1] (4.2¶3), I'm requesting an extension
for the discussion period of 7 days.
Apologies for jumping this on the last minute, I've been off-sick and
have been fiercely triaging and catching up with issues the last day or
25 matches
Mail list logo
