On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 01:08:17PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
If aj's stops beeing a member of dunc-tank, and do not works publicily
for that dunc-tank, then I remove my second here, he can stay as DPL.
If he prefers dunc-tank, and work for it, he must not be a delegate
anymore, and
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 07:10:25PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
I'd say that I'm not more comfortable with Steve McIntyre beeing
involved and a DPL-assistant (or whatever name his position has)
either, so if Aj stops beeing involved with dunc-tank, (1) is in fact
half solved.
Then
On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 10:10:22AM +0200, Fabian Fagerholm wrote:
Those in favour of two separate GR's:
* Read my GR proposal [0] and second it (your choice of course).
* Read Nathanael's amendment proposal [1] to my proposal. A DD
needs to send it as a reply to my
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 02:52:01PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Q1.1) Are GFDL licensed works without invariant texts non-free?
Well, according to the RM team, and some developers (full
disclosure: myself included), yes, they are, even if there is no
explicit infraction of
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 07:59:44PM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
People should think long and hard about this requirement, independent
of whether it is DFSG-compliant. Think about the implications for the
ftp.debian.org mirror network, and for CD and DVD vendors. It's a
pretty significant
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 04:06:22PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
Margarita Manterola wrote:
Also, people in the NM queue that have to agree to the Social Contract
and the DFSG, might be interested in knowing why these documents have
the shape they have before actually agreeing to them.
On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 06:50:04PM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote:
Is this correct answer?
[1] Mr. good
[3] Mr. unsuitable
[4] Mr. bad
[2] None Of The Above
As I read voting system, anything below None Of The Above is the same.
So does this become the same as:
[1] Mr. good
[3] Mr.
On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 09:16:21AM -0800, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Fri, Mar 25, 2005 at 09:34:35AM +0100, Emmanuel le Chevoir wrote:
Again, sorry for beeing such an idiot :/
Does that mean you improved your vote also? ;-)
I'm lost, what was wrong with his
On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 11:52:08AM +1100, Anand Kumria wrote:
I hereby nominate Angus 'gus' Lees as Debian Project Leader (DPL).
He might be a emacs (xemacs too. peh.) using perl fanboy but he lives in
Cabal HQ (Sydney, Australia)[1].
Don't developers have to nominate themselves? Or am I
On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 01:17:53PM +1100, Angus Lees wrote:
At Wed, 23 Feb 2005 19:48:35 -0600, Graham Wilson wrote:
Don't developers have to nominate themselves? Or am I mistaken?
That seems a strange rule. How about I second the nomination, is that
good enough for you?
I'm not bothered
On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 08:18:52PM +0200, Joachim Breitner wrote:
Am Sonntag, den 24.10.2004, 14:20 -0500 schrieb Manoj Srivastava:
The machine is running Sarge, updated yesterday. I guess this
is as good a time as any to try signing with subkeys.
just tried again, did not help...
On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 10:07:10PM +0200, Joachim Breitner wrote:
Am Dienstag, den 26.10.2004, 14:28 -0500 schrieb Graham Wilson:
On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 08:18:52PM +0200, Joachim Breitner wrote:
just tried again, did not help...
Voting with a message signed with a subkey worked fine
On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 03:21:49AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Pursuant to packaging Devotee, I am trying to add test suite to the
package. In order to run a decent test, I need a set of ballots --
signed ballots -- at least some of which are signed by keys in the
debian keyring.
Manoj, is
On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 07:00:29PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
Rationale:
- Taking technical decisions through voting is not generaly a good
idea.
Agreed.
- We're facing a communication problem, so the solution is to ease
communication between the affected parties.
This GR
On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 08:04:41AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
-=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
[ ] Choice 1: Postpone changes until September 2004 [needs 3:1]
[ ] Choice 2: Postpone changes
On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 04:43:29PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 05:35:07PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
This rely on the premices that at least some options will allow to release
sarge sooner. Unfortunately discussions on debian-vote involving the
release manager and
On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 10:34:12PM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote:
Proposal F:
The Debian project resolves that it will not compromise on freedom,
and will never knowingly issue another release (excluding point
updates to stable releases) that contains anything in the main or
contrib
On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 06:32:11AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Graham Wilson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040605 06:25]:
By dropping proposal F from the ballot, we are dropping the only
proposal that does not support releasing Sarge as is. We will not drop a
proposal simply because you disagree
On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 11:01:18AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
I think that you also mean me with your mail. Perhaps you're right,
and it may be the best to drop both proposals F and G from the ballot.
I wouldn't stand in the way of dropping both proposals together from
the ballot, and vote
On Thu, May 27, 2004 at 10:11:22AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Graham Wilson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040527 06:25]:
On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 09:26:51AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Proposal F got the requisite number of seconds, and is now on
the ballot. The discussion period has
On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 09:01:22PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 07:56:47PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
How about
[###] 5. Don't release sarge until it is 100% free
Does that mean non-free must be empty for Sarge?
No.
--
gram
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 09:26:51AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Proposal F got the requisite number of seconds, and is now on
the ballot. The discussion period has been reset. If someone would
like to provide a 40 char description of the proposal for the ballot,
I'll modify my
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 10:12:52AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Debian Project Secretary ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040523 23:55]:
I do not think we can over ride the constitution, and other
foundation documents, with a simple position statement; so I would
not think a simple position
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 10:09:17AM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
Graham Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
By program I mean everything that we formerly required to be distributed
under the DFSG,
Huh? That's not a definition, especially since all this debate is about
whether our previous
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 08:19:10PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Graham Wilson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040524 20:10]:
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 10:12:52AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Debian Project Secretary ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040523 23:55]:
I do not think we can over ride
On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 04:35:58PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 08:27:02PM -0500, Graham Wilson wrote:
How about:
We, Debian developers, issue the statement:
On the question on what software should be allowed in the main section
of our archive
On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 10:44:57AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 07:38:11PM -0500, Graham Wilson wrote:
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 01:33:28PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
Was the GFDL used in woody at all?
Regardless, I think the statement should use more definite
On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 05:19:40PM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote:
I'm reluctant to vote for a resolution that acknowledges that the
changes made to the social contract were anything but editorial.
I agree. I think there are a couple of proposals [0][1] being made that
don't make the assumption
On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 12:47:52PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 11:27:12AM -0500, Graham Wilson wrote:
Yes, I could understand wanting to avoid involving the meaning of the
social contract in the statement.
Note, however, that if you work too hard to isolate the GR
On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 01:06:39PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
I propose the following amendment, replacing the entire text of the
resolution:
---
The Debian project resolves that it will not compromise on freedom,
and will never knowingly issue another release (excluding point
updates
On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 03:15:54PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Whether or not it changed the SC is a matter for debate; but it is
undisputed that the policies of the project did change drastically due
to that GR.
Agreed.
What would you suggest that paragraph should say in order to
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 01:41:13AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
-
We, Debian developers, issue the statement:
On the question on what software should be allowed in the main section
of our archive (The official Debian distribution) for our forthcoming
release
On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 04:22:38PM -0500, Graham Wilson wrote:
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 01:41:13AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
-
We, Debian developers, issue the statement:
On the question on what software should be allowed in the main section
of our
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 06:39:41PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I don't really think any GR would avoid me wanting the tech ctte's
explicit decision.
Would you please make up your mind: Will you, or will you not, allow
yourself to be overruled by
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 07:11:57PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
It should be, but it a matter of natural language (hence
interpretation) whether each of the proposed General Resolution
actually constitute Overriding. The Delegate in question has to decide
for himself whether the language in
On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 02:05:35PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 01:45:40PM -0400, Daniel Burrows wrote:
Could you explain why this paragraph in proposal E is
insufficient?
In the specific case of General Resolution 2004_003, since that
release currently in
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 01:33:28PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-
We, Debian developers, issue the statement:
On the question on what software should be allowed in the main section
of our archive (The official Debian
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 07:38:11PM -0500, Graham Wilson wrote:
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 01:33:28PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-
We, Debian developers, issue the statement:
On the question on what software
On Sun, May 16, 2004 at 10:27:49AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On 15 May 2004 21:11:02 +0100, Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Scripsit Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The details of the general resolution can be found at:
http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_004
I think
On Sun, May 16, 2004 at 06:03:34PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sun, 16 May 2004 22:09:01 +0200, Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Sun, May 16, 2004 at 10:27:49AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On 15 May 2004 21:11:02 +0100, Henning Makholm
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
The
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 04:01:57PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
In the case of [0], Enrico certainly doesn't seem to have been satisfied
at the outcome and that frustration seems to be resulting in him
expressing some outrage at communications issues on my behalf [4],
and you seem to have been
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 04:01:57PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
In the case of [0], Enrico certainly doesn't seem to have been satisfied
at the outcome and that frustration seems to be resulting in him
expressing some outrage at communications issues on my behalf [4],
and you seem to have been
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 06:55:38PM -0600, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
NOTE: The vote must be GPG signed (or PGP signed) with your key that
is in the Debian keyring.
Manoj, does signing with subkeys work now? Or do I still have to use my
primary key?
--
gram
signature.asc
Description:
On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 01:48:48AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
I propose that the Debian project resolve that:
==
Acknowledging that some of our users continue to require the use of
programs that don't conform to the Debian
On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 01:48:48AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
I propose that the Debian project resolve that:
==
Acknowledging that some of our users continue to require the use of
programs that don't conform to the Debian
On Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 08:43:11PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
I propose the following resolution:
The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free
section; there will be no more stable releases of
On Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 08:43:11PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
I propose the following resolution:
The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free
section; there will be no more stable releases of
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 03:43:41PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 10:29:00 -0600, Graham Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 12:43:52AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
E) I say I'm willing to seriously consider breaking up my proposal
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 04:33:04AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 01:01:47PM +0100, Peter Makholm wrote:
I support Branden's proposal but I don't support the removal of
non-free.
Branden's proposal has the first clause read:
Debian Will Remain 100% Free
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 12:43:52AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
E) I say I'm willing to seriously consider breaking up my proposal if
the Project Secretary can help me identify how many axes of
orthogonality he perceives in my original RFD.
FWIW, in my opinion there are five distinct
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 03:43:41PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 10:29:00 -0600, Graham Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 12:43:52AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
E) I say I'm willing to seriously consider breaking up my proposal
On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 11:10:45PM +0100, Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
I am seeking seconds and editorial amendments to this proposed General
Resolution.
Wouldn't it be better to separate the editorial changes from the
conceptual changes and vote on two orthogonal proposals?
I think this is a
On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 11:10:45PM +0100, Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
I am seeking seconds and editorial amendments to this proposed General
Resolution.
Wouldn't it be better to separate the editorial changes from the
conceptual changes and vote on two orthogonal proposals?
I think this is a
On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 12:41:31PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
[At the time of writing, just into the second week of the voting
period, 171 ballots have been received, with 42 being rejected,
resulting in 124 valid votes from 129 developers.
Hi, Manoj. How is this possible? Shouldn't the
On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 12:41:31PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
[At the time of writing, just into the second week of the voting
period, 171 ballots have been received, with 42 being rejected,
resulting in 124 valid votes from 129 developers.
Hi, Manoj. How is this possible? Shouldn't the
On Sat, Oct 18, 2003 at 10:43:04AM +, Jonathan Matthews wrote:
Anthony DeRobertis had the gall to say:
OK, we get a fair number of these. So do some other people. None of the
claimants ever seem to respond when asked about the details. From
googling, here are some other references:
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 04:13:57PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Le Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 04:06:59PM -0500, Branden Robinson écrivait:
* The DPL must also follow up with the delegates, and ensure that
they understand their responsibilities; not just so that they know
what is
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 04:13:57PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Le Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 04:06:59PM -0500, Branden Robinson écrivait:
* The DPL must also follow up with the delegates, and ensure that
they understand their responsibilities; not just so that they know
what is
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 11:30:27PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 01:15:10PM -0600, Graham Wilson wrote:
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 04:13:57PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
I think all this is useless.
http://www.debian.org/intro/organization is enough
that is not so
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 12:56:19AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 09:37:34PM -0600, Graham Wilson wrote:
do you think that it is the responsibility of the dpl to get this process
started?
if so, do you intend to do this? and if not, how do you think the
process
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 12:56:19AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 09:37:34PM -0600, Graham Wilson wrote:
do you think that it is the responsibility of the dpl to get this process
started?
if so, do you intend to do this? and if not, how do you think the
process
On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 09:22:53PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 12:48:11AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
3. We'd better release :
[ ] twice a year
[ ] once a year
[ ] every two years
[ ] always, we just throw stable away and keep a slightly modified
On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 09:22:53PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 12:48:11AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
3. We'd better release :
[ ] twice a year
[ ] once a year
[ ] every two years
[ ] always, we just throw stable away and keep a slightly modified
63 matches
Mail list logo
