Yow, Debian uses a ludicrously complicated voting system.
How was it chosen in the first place anyway?
(Personally, I'm an approval voting fan. Easy to understand, and
particularly good when the most important thing is to avoid causing a
furious schism.)
--Nathanael
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 09:33:34PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Yow, Debian uses a ludicrously complicated voting system.
How was it chosen in the first place anyway?
(Personally, I'm an approval voting fan. Easy to understand, and
particularly good whe
Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Hi,
Nathanael Nerode:
Yow, Debian uses a ludicrously complicated voting system.
How was it chosen in the first place anyway?
Voting algorithms should obey some stringent anti-politicking and
plain-common-sense restrictions.
See http://electionmethods.org
John Robinson said:
>another example: DPL election, two candidates, R=45
>
>450x DAB
> 45x ADB
>
>Condorcet: D wins
>Proposed: A wins
>Amended: D wins
You appear to be making the same mistake as Manoj did, which I noted in
a message to debian-devel.
Under the proposed system (Manoj's), B is
Here's the nightmare scenario, under Manoj's amendment, which I think
John Robinson may have been trying to come up with. Consider two options,
A and B, and the default option D. Let the quorum requirement R=20.
39 people show up to vote. These are their preferences (most prefered
on the left,
Raul Miller wrote:
>
>On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 08:46:13PM +0200, Jochen Voss wrote:
>> In my example local quorum causes the following problem:
>> dropping an irrelevant option changes which
>> relevant option wins the election.
>> Global quorum does not have this problem.
>
>The way you've apparent
>"breaking" Condorcet isn't a meaningful thing to say. Adding quorum and
I think we all understand it to mean "causing the system to violate the
Condorcet criterion".
>supermajority obviously produce different outcomes to Cloneproof SSD --
>if they didn't, there'd be no point adding them. They do
It may be noted that my example involves on a fair number of people
ranking A *equal* to the default option.
It's possible to prohibit this, which would certainly simplify some
things. However, I think it is perfectly legitimate for someone to
consider something to be of equal value to the def
Raul Miller said:
>Which makes at least some sense: only 19 people actively approved of A,
>while 20 actively approved of B. Granted, this mechanism only kicks in
>for votes with very low turnout or where significant numbers of people
>don't actively approve of options, but I'm not convinced that
Raul wrote:
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but: what Manoj's May 15 proposal
> implements logically equivalent to your suggestion?
Markus Schulze wrote:
>As far as I have understood Manoj's May 15 proposal correctly,
>an option is dropped unless it _directly_ defeats the default
>option with the requi
Raul Miller wrote:
>On Sat, May 24, 2003 at 09:48:36PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> Seriously, Manoj's system *isn't* a quorum system.
>
>It's a per-option quorum. That's different from "not being a quorum."
No, it's not a quorum syste
Anthony Towns said:
If you meant:
19x DAB
19x ABD
1x BDA
This is indeed what I meant. :-( Sorry.
Note that without quorum, A is dropped any way, since it doesn't defeat
the default option by its majority requirement, and B wins then too. The
way the proposal is const
On Tue, 27 May 2003 10:18:18 -0400, Andrew Pimlott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
... and also more likely than if a plain Condorcet method were used.
Which complicates the analysis, because it's easy to construct cases
where B voters can beat A with strategy under both Condorcet+SSD and
"approval+Co
Manoj said:
On Tue, 27 May 2003 14:02:19 -0400, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
I've been trying to construct an example of perverse results of the
sort I want (where A beats D, B beats D, A beats B, and B wins
because of quorum). All the correct examples (which I can f
Manoj said:
>Ah, so now it is a matter of determining intent. So, short of
> providing code for telepathically determining the voters intent, how
> can one cater to people who really find A unacceptable, and are
> voting honestly, from people who would consider A acceptable, but are
> lying to
Manoj:
>I think I must be missing something major here (sorry:I've had
> less than an average of 5 hours of sleep a night for the last 10 days
> or so, and in my old age my faculties are failing me)
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 06:07:00PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Yes,
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 06:31:22PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Here's a generalized example:
>
> * Q-1 (or fewer) of the voters vote C as the only acceptable option:
> C = 1
> D = 2
> A = 3
> B = 3
> * Slightly less than one-half of the remaining voter
Anthony Towns said:
Fundamentally, what it requires is for very few people to express
full preferences. There're only two reasons for this: one is that most
people don't understand the issue, which isn't what happens in Debian;
Or at least if people don't understand the issue, they think they
u
considered in the cSSD process.
This has proved quite uncontroversial. It does not affect "ideal
democratic winners", only the (estimated) 5% of votes without one.
--Nathanael Nerode.
Comments on proposed wording follow, generally not intended to change
Branden's meanings, but to clarify.
>[PROPOSED DRAFT FOR AMENDMENT; NOT OFFICIAL]
> 1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free
>
> We promise to preserve your right to freely use, modify, and
> distribute Debian operating system
After some thought, :-) I have concluded that it may be preferable to
separate the proposal to drop Social Contract clause 5 from the other
changes. I, and probably others, care much more about nailing down that
everything in 'main' must follow the DFSG, than about what happens to clause
5, an
Anthony Towns wrote:
>What, exactly, is the point of removing non-free from the social contract,
>if we're not going to remove non-free entirely?
Hmm.
To remove non-free, but not contrib?
To add new restrictions on what can be in non-free? (Currently the only
requirement for a package in non-f
Branden Robinson wrote, in
>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.
These are the axes I see.
(1) Removal of clause 5, so that non-free is not guarante
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01192.html
snipped>
Andrew, I love it. :-) Every word.
This is so much more important than "non-free or not". To me anyway.
--Nathanael Nerode
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01122.html:
5. Programs That Don't Meet Our Free-Software Standards
We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of programs
Should be "programs and other software". Software
the importance of non-free software has greatly decreased since the
founding of the project; and
But, unfortunately, the FSF releases large amounts of non-free software
(documentation) which many people would consider important. Eventually
it will be replaced or relicensed, but
Sven Luther wrote:
But as you said, it doesn't really prove anything, only that the people
using popularity contest don't really use these non-free packages much.
What about all those who don't run popularity contest, or those who are
offline ? What about monitoring BTS traffic for those packages
Craig Sanders ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
This non-free data & documentation can still be used and even modifed by the
end-user, however,
Not necessarily legally modified. In the US you may need a license to
modify works even privately; it's legally unclear.
and the fact that modified versions
John Goerzen wrote:
What's more, if there really are as many people that find
non-free vital, they will no doubt posess the skill, will, and resources
to ensure that a quality non-free repository will exist for a long time.
I very much suspect they will do a better job maintaining it than we
ha
Sven Luther wrote:
Also, another danger i see in it, is that if we don't have a a non-free
anymore, many packages which are borderlines, and which go into non-free
today, will be tempted to go into main (well, not good english, but i
guess you understand).
M J Ray wrote:
We make mistakes somet
Craig Sanders wrote:
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 11:44:17PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Craig Sanders ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
This non-free data & documentation can still be used and even modifed by
the end-user, however,
Not necessarily legally modified. In the US you may ne
John Goerzen wrote:
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 11:50:43PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
John Goerzen wrote:
What's more, if there really are as many people that find
non-free vital, they will no doubt posess the skill, will, and resources
to ensure that a quality non-free repository will
Craig Sanders wrote:
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 05:07:18PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
copyrights do not affect the usage of a document, they only affect the right
to copy and distribute. that's why it's called a "COPYRIGHT", not a
"USERIGHT". what you do with
Raul Miller wrote:
>I'm proposing that we can update the social contract to eliminate the
>ambiguities which encourage these misunderstandings, while retaining
>the the sense and significance of the contract, and without any radical
>changes in the project itself.
>
>Old: "1. Debian Will Remain 10
Anthony Towns wrote:
>How about:
>
> 1. The Debian Distribution Will Remain 100% Free Software
>
> We promise to keep the Debian Distribution entirely free software. As
> there are many definitions of free software, we include the
> guidelines we use to determine if software is "free"
Anthony Towns wrote:
>Basically, there are two paths to having a main that's completely free:
>remove everything that's not free, and have an operating system that's
>even more flakey (byebye to the Debian logo, byebye to glibc and gcc
>documentation, byebye to RFCs, byebye to apps without clearly
Anthony Towns wrote:
>The current rules are that programs don't get into main unless they appear
>to have DFSG-free licenses, and get removed from main if it turns out that
>there are some non-DFSG-free terms in there, and upstream isn't willing
>to change them. DFSG-free licenses are preferred for
> Andrew Suffield's editorial-fixes proposal deals with the contentious issue
> of the meaning of "Software" and the limitation of section 5 to "Programs",
> by clarifying that the DFSG applies to *all* works.
Anthony Towns, doing his impersonation of someone who hasn't done his
homework, wro
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote (in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01835.html):
>Currently, there seem to be several parts of the social contract which
>attract interpretations which conflict with clear intent of the social
>contract (as represented by common
AJ wrote:
> What makes more sense? Keeping stuff our users rely on and expect
> available, having productive relationships with upstream and helping
> improve their software, or blindly adhering to an ideal, brooking no
> exceptions and ignoring any negative consequences?
May I rephrase this questi
AJ wrote:
>Contributing and controlling are different things. You can contribute
>all you like as a non-developer, but you certainly shouldn't expect to
>be able to make demands just because you do so. Even as a developer you
>don't get to make that many demands.
Demands? Did I make any demands?
AJ Towns, doing his best idiot impression, said:
>Well, I'm sorry that you're so blinkered as to think that software cannot
>possibly mean programs, but not documentation,
It could, but (a) that's not the most proper meaning, and (b) it's not the
meaning of the people who wrote the phrase. Did yo
AJ wrote:
>I don't really see how trying to convince the FSF to change the GFDL is
>counterproductive; surely it's unproductive at worst.
Yep, it's unproductive. However, allowing non-free GFDL stuff into main gives
the FSF precisely zero incentive to change the GFDL, and in fact allows them
to
In any event, RMS has eg written on the GFDL:
] There is no disconnect between our purpose and our methods. Our
] licenses grant the freedoms that we are fighting for. We are
] following the purposes and criteria we developed in the 80s.
]
] Lately Debian has interpreted the DFSG in a way tha
AJ quoth:
>> >Well,
>> >the other question that you seem to want to raise is whether we should
>> >decide we've been hypocrites and liars for the entirety of our existance
>> >by choosing a particular new reading of the social contract.
>> Well, you're only lying once you *notice* that you're not t
AJT wrote:
>BTW, fix your mail reader. There's no excuse for breaking threads, nor for
>Cc'ing people with a Mail-Followup-To set when posting to debian lists.
Sorry about the latter. Fixing the former is much more involved, quite
frankly.
>> Obviously, it's worth asking upstream to relicense before pulling stuff.
But
>> when upstream has *refused*, that's another matter. Isn't it?
>
>Frankly, I don't think there's been a reasonable discussion with upstream
>yet. What I've seen has been people telling the FSF they're immoral
>and
This would eliminate confusion such as that from Ted Ts'o in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200402/msg00135.html.
It also fits the English-language meaning better.
--
Nathanael Nerode
US citizens: if you're considering voting for Bush, look at these f
to think it's over.
Anthony also said that it's more important to have documentation in Debian
for important programs, under whatever license, than that the documenation
be DFSG-free. I suppose this is consistent with his curious views about
non-free being part of Debian. Yet he claim
Rob Browning wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> But then everyone else who is saving their time by using Sven's
>> driver would have to duplicate it, and that may be a significant
>> amount of time lost that culd have gone towards something more
>> useful (anyone who c
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> > I have been told more than once by Debian developers (Christian
>> > Marillat is a prime offender) that "this bug is now fixed in
>> > upstream", and had the bug closed then, even though no Debian package
>> > has bee
Anthony Towns wrote:
> No, a leader's not a dictator. Let's delve into this some more: I spent
> a fair bit of time advocating what I thought was the appropriate course
> of action on non-free. I prepared a resolution, and it even won the day.
> For my involvement in this debate, I've been called
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
>
>> It's reasonably common in real life voting to limit campaigning in the
>> days before the actual election.
>
> Huh? In this country it's certainly not.
In the US, campaigning is prohibited within 50 feet of a polling place on
election d
Andreas Barth wrote:
> Ji,
>
> I'm not entirly happy with this proposal. One change is a large
> change: Is all in Debian Software or not? This of course has impact on
> the whole document, but is a seperate issue from the wording.
This is, in Andrew's proposal, basically an issue of wording.
(A
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
>
>> And? You are aware there are other countries in the world, right? You're
>> also aware that "common" doesn't mean universal, and that whether it
>> happens in 10% of cases or 90% doesn't make any difference to the point
>> of my mail? If y
Andreas Barth wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I herby propose the following editorial changes to the SC, as
> alternative to Andrews proposal:
>
> | 1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
> |
> | We promise to keep the Debian system and all its components entirely
OK, while we're proposing changes
How
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 06:44:57PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> The current statement is:
>>
>> >> 1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
>> This states that everything in Debian is software, and futhermore that
>> eve
Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040325 00:25]:
>> On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 21:07:27 +0100, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> said:
>>
>> > Ji, I'm not entirly happy with this proposal. One change is a large
>> > change: Is all in Debian Software or not? This of course
Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Nathanael Nerode ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040327 23:10]:
>> How about "...entirely free software. This includes programs,
>> documentation, data, and any other works which are part of the Debian
>> system (except possibly license texts whic
Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Nathanael Nerode ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040325 00:55]:
>> > Well, IMHO the old version is much nicer. The social contract _should_
>> > in my opinion have some nice, not too technical start. A promise is a
>> > very good start, and I'd lik
Raul Miller wrote:
>> >> >> 1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
>
>> >> This states that everything in Debian is software, and futhermore that
>> >> everything in Debian is free.
>
>> > :%s/and furthermore/and\/or/
>
> O
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 01:21:33AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> Raul Miller wrote:
>> > * There are people in Debian.
>> Fine, there are a bunch of silly interpretations as well. The context
>> indicates that "Debian"
Michael Banck wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 01:21:33AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> Raul Miller wrote:
>> > On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 05:27:34PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>
>> >> No, trust me, we parsed this one very carefully and took an excessiv
Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 05:05:57PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>>
>> This would clarify the main point that has been spawning endless attempts
>> by occasional maintainers to sneak non-free stuff into "main".
>
> what "endless
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Craig Sanders wrote:
| On Sun, Apr 04, 2004 at 01:38:15PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
|
|>Craig Sanders wrote:
|>
|>
|>>On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 05:05:57PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
|>>
|>>>This would clarif
Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2004 at 09:59:36AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
>> On 2004-04-16 04:32:57 +0100 Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 09:19:39AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
>> >>Even if not "decided" unanimously, the "jury" doesn't seem to be in
>> >>much
the importance of non-free software has greatly decreased since the
founding of the project; and
But, unfortunately, the FSF releases large amounts of non-free software
(documentation) which many people would consider important. Eventually
it will be replaced or relicensed, but t
Craig Sanders ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
This non-free data & documentation can still be used and even modifed by the
end-user, however,
Not necessarily legally modified. In the US you may need a license to
modify works even privately; it's legally unclear.
and the fact that modified versions ca
John Goerzen wrote:
What's more, if there really are as many people that find
non-free vital, they will no doubt posess the skill, will, and resources
to ensure that a quality non-free repository will exist for a long time.
I very much suspect they will do a better job maintaining it than we
have
Sven Luther wrote:
Also, another danger i see in it, is that if we don't have a a non-free
anymore, many packages which are borderlines, and which go into non-free
today, will be tempted to go into main (well, not good english, but i
guess you understand).
M J Ray wrote:
We make mistakes sometimes
Sven Luther wrote:
But as you said, it doesn't really prove anything, only that the people
using popularity contest don't really use these non-free packages much.
What about all those who don't run popularity contest, or those who are
offline ? What about monitoring BTS traffic for those packages ?
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01122.html:
5. Programs That Don't Meet Our Free-Software Standards
We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of programs
Should be "programs and other software". Software
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01192.html
snipped>
Andrew, I love it. :-) Every word.
This is so much more important than "non-free or not". To me anyway.
--Nathanael Nerode
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
Craig Sanders wrote:
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 11:44:17PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Craig Sanders ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
This non-free data & documentation can still be used and even modifed by
the end-user, however,
Not necessarily legally modified. In the US you may need a licens
John Goerzen wrote:
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 11:50:43PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
John Goerzen wrote:
What's more, if there really are as many people that find
non-free vital, they will no doubt posess the skill, will, and resources
to ensure that a quality non-free repository will exis
Craig Sanders wrote:
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 05:07:18PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
copyrights do not affect the usage of a document, they only affect the right
to copy and distribute. that's why it's called a "COPYRIGHT", not a
"USERIGHT". what you do with you
Raul Miller wrote:
>I'm proposing that we can update the social contract to eliminate the
>ambiguities which encourage these misunderstandings, while retaining
>the the sense and significance of the contract, and without any radical
>changes in the project itself.
>
>Old: "1. Debian Will Remain 10
Anthony Towns wrote:
>How about:
>
> 1. The Debian Distribution Will Remain 100% Free Software
>
> We promise to keep the Debian Distribution entirely free software. As
> there are many definitions of free software, we include the
> guidelines we use to determine if software is "free"
Anthony Towns wrote:
>Basically, there are two paths to having a main that's completely free:
>remove everything that's not free, and have an operating system that's
>even more flakey (byebye to the Debian logo, byebye to glibc and gcc
>documentation, byebye to RFCs, byebye to apps without clearly
Anthony Towns wrote:
>The current rules are that programs don't get into main unless they appear
>to have DFSG-free licenses, and get removed from main if it turns out that
>there are some non-DFSG-free terms in there, and upstream isn't willing
>to change them. DFSG-free licenses are preferred for
> Andrew Suffield's editorial-fixes proposal deals with the contentious issue
> of the meaning of "Software" and the limitation of section 5 to "Programs",
> by clarifying that the DFSG applies to *all* works.
Anthony Towns, doing his impersonation of someone who hasn't done his
homework, wro
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote (in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01835.html):
>Currently, there seem to be several parts of the social contract which
>attract interpretations which conflict with clear intent of the social
>contract (as represented by common
AJ wrote:
> What makes more sense? Keeping stuff our users rely on and expect
> available, having productive relationships with upstream and helping
> improve their software, or blindly adhering to an ideal, brooking no
> exceptions and ignoring any negative consequences?
May I rephrase this questi
AJ wrote:
>Contributing and controlling are different things. You can contribute
>all you like as a non-developer, but you certainly shouldn't expect to
>be able to make demands just because you do so. Even as a developer you
>don't get to make that many demands.
Demands? Did I make any demands?
AJ Towns, doing his best idiot impression, said:
>Well, I'm sorry that you're so blinkered as to think that software cannot
>possibly mean programs, but not documentation,
It could, but (a) that's not the most proper meaning, and (b) it's not the
meaning of the people who wrote the phrase. Did yo
AJ wrote:
>I don't really see how trying to convince the FSF to change the GFDL is
>counterproductive; surely it's unproductive at worst.
Yep, it's unproductive. However, allowing non-free GFDL stuff into main gives
the FSF precisely zero incentive to change the GFDL, and in fact allows them
to
In any event, RMS has eg written on the GFDL:
] There is no disconnect between our purpose and our methods. Our
] licenses grant the freedoms that we are fighting for. We are
] following the purposes and criteria we developed in the 80s.
]
] Lately Debian has interpreted the DFSG in a way that
AJ quoth:
>> >Well,
>> >the other question that you seem to want to raise is whether we should
>> >decide we've been hypocrites and liars for the entirety of our existance
>> >by choosing a particular new reading of the social contract.
>> Well, you're only lying once you *notice* that you're not t
AJT wrote:
>BTW, fix your mail reader. There's no excuse for breaking threads, nor for
>Cc'ing people with a Mail-Followup-To set when posting to debian lists.
Sorry about the latter. Fixing the former is much more involved, quite
frankly.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a
>> Obviously, it's worth asking upstream to relicense before pulling stuff.
But
>> when upstream has *refused*, that's another matter. Isn't it?
>
>Frankly, I don't think there's been a reasonable discussion with upstream
>yet. What I've seen has been people telling the FSF they're immoral
>and
This would eliminate confusion such as that from Ted Ts'o in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200402/msg00135.html.
It also fits the English-language meaning better.
--
Nathanael Nerode
US citizens: if you're considering voting for Bush, look at these f
t of Debian. Yet he claimed to support the Social
Contract at least I think he did.
--
Nathanael Nerode
US citizens: if you're considering voting for Bush, look at these first:
http://www.misleader.org/ http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/arar/
http://www.house.gov/reform/min/politicsand
Rob Browning wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> But then everyone else who is saving their time by using Sven's
>> driver would have to duplicate it, and that may be a significant
>> amount of time lost that culd have gone towards something more
>> useful (anyone who c
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> > I have been told more than once by Debian developers (Christian
>> > Marillat is a prime offender) that "this bug is now fixed in
>> > upstream", and had the bug closed then, even though no Debian package
>> > has bee
Anthony Towns wrote:
> No, a leader's not a dictator. Let's delve into this some more: I spent
> a fair bit of time advocating what I thought was the appropriate course
> of action on non-free. I prepared a resolution, and it even won the day.
> For my involvement in this debate, I've been called
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> It's reasonably common in real life voting to limit campaigning in the
>> days before the actual election.
>
> Huh? In this country it's certainly not.
In the US, campaigning is prohibited within 50 feet of a polling
Andreas Barth wrote:
> Ji,
>
> I'm not entirly happy with this proposal. One change is a large
> change: Is all in Debian Software or not? This of course has impact on
> the whole document, but is a seperate issue from the wording.
This is, in Andrew's proposal, basically an issue of wording.
(A
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> And? You are aware there are other countries in the world, right? You're
>> also aware that "common" doesn't mean universal, and that whether it
>> happens in 10% of cases or 90% doesn't make any difference to the point
Andreas Barth wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I herby propose the following editorial changes to the SC, as
> alternative to Andrews proposal:
>
> | 1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
> |
> | We promise to keep the Debian system and all its components entirely
OK, while we're proposing changes
How
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 06:44:57PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> The current statement is:
>>
>> >> 1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
>> This states that everything in Debian is software, and futhermore that
>> eve
1 - 100 of 196 matches
Mail list logo
