* Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-11-18 14:47]:
> On Tue, Nov 18 2008, Martin Wuertele wrote:
>
> > * Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-11-17 19:31]:
> >
> >> (Quote attribution elided on purpose.)
> >> > Stop your FUD.
> &g
* Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-11-17 19:31]:
> (Quote attribution elided on purpose.)
> > Stop your FUD.
> >
> > The Release Team isn't violating the Social Contract.
>
> It is my opinion that releasing lenny with known DFSG violations is a
> violation of the Social Contract, on the
* Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-10-28 15:01]:
> What does it change? Are we going to rely on people being busy to block
> a decision that we disagree with? That's ... interesting.
It's interesting that someone get's no stoned for suggesting changes
while in the past it would've been im
* Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-10-28 14:03]:
> This is very different from saying that nothing will happen because the
> decision is on hold under 4.2.2.2. If Joerg suddenly got a lot of free
> time, he could implement all the changes quickly and start giving DME/DC
> statuses to peopl
Hi Sven!
* Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-05-11 10:38]:
> Possibly, but can you point out the little problem here ? I guess we
> have two problems :
>
> - the original problem between frans and me.
>
> - the 'email flood' problem.
Currently I only see one problem: you.
Martin, anno
* Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-11-01 19:44]:
> With this mail I'm formally delegating Debian's policy maintenance to the
> following group:
>
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Junichi Uekawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Andreas
* Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-10-27 19:49]:
> FWIW, you can't call an immediate vote on your proposal. Your proposal
> still has the normal minimum discussion period. (Unless the DPL varies
> it by a week.)
>
> The immediate vote that Manoj is calling is a separate ballot, to
> determ
* Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-10-27 08:49]:
> You are overpassing your rights as secretary, it is not for you as secretary
> to call for a vote, or take any such actions, but it is only the proposer and
> the seconders who can do such.
As you insist - which I still think isn't necessary
* Anthony Towns [2006-10-27 10:27]:
> I'm not sure what all this is aiming to achieve beyond being a different
> attempt to effectively prevent me from exercising any DPL powers, and
> to further discourage people from having any faith in our constitutional
> processes.
You are actually encourag
* Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-10-27 08:49]:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 06:10:46PM -0500, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > As I count, this resolution to delay the decition of the DPL
> > of the withdrawal of the Package Policy Committee delegation has
> > receiv
* John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-10-25 21:55]:
> You want to override a decision not because the decision is bad on its
> face, but because of a *guess* as to the reason for it?
>
> That makes no sense. What difference does the reason make? If it's a
> good decision, then let it stand
I disagree with the Policy delegation decision of our DPL [1] and
therefore propose a resolution as defined in section 4.2.2 of the Debian
constitution to delay the decision of the Debian Project Leader keeping
the Package Policy Committee as defined[2] in place until the Debian
Project Leader has
I second the following proposal:
> === START OF PROPOSAL ===
> Definition: For the purpose of this resolution, the "firmware" mentioned below
> designates binary data included in some of the linux kernel drivers, usually
> as
> hex-encoded variables and whose purpose is to be loaded into a given
I second the following proposal:
> === START OF PROPOSAL ===
> Definition: For the purpose of this resolution, the "firmware" mentioned below
> designates binary data included in some of the linux kernel drivers, usually
> as
> hex-encoded variables and whose purpose is to be loaded into a given
> == BEGIN PROPOSAL =
>
> The Free Software movement is about enabling users to modify the works
> that they use on their computer; about giving users the same
> information that copyright holders and upstream developers have. As
> such, a critical part
Hi Steve!
* Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-09-07 13:35]:
> There's also something of a difference, IMHO, between dropping sourceless
> firmware from the kernel with the result that some users will be unable to
> install etch at all, and requiring that you not add arbitrary other non-fre
* Anthony Towns [2006-09-05 09:49]:
> The Debian Project resolves that:
>
> (a) The Social Contract shall be reverted to its original form,
> as at http://www.debian.org/social_contract.1.0
>
> (b) The term "software" as used in the Social Contract shall be
> presumed on
* Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-08-23 00:18]:
> The application of DFSG#2 to firmware and other data
>
>
> The Debian Project recognizes that access to source code for a work of
> software is very important for soft
* Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-07-21 03:39]:
> On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 at 08:12:54PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> > SPI and Debian are separate organisations who share some goals. Debian
> > is grateful for the legal support framework offered by SPI. Debian's
> > Develo
* MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-06-20 08:27]:
> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 07:27:08AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: [...]
> > > Which countries can have no suitable organisations?
> >
> > I don't know, but I don't want to gamble on it not being an issue.
>
>
20 matches
Mail list logo
