the ballot is incoherent and invalid because it claims that this
proposal is modifying a foundation document while not specifying
how it is doing so or the actual text of the change;
or
the requirement of a supermajority for choice 3 is invalid.
--
Oliver
On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 13:24 +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
Oliver Elphick olly@lfix.co.uk writes:
If the Secretary's creative interpretation is allowed to stand, the
proper description of what is happening can only be that this proposal
adds a new foundation document.
As you (and some
;
they need to be clear.
If choice 3 gets a majority but not by 3:1, whose view of the legalities
will prevail?
--
Oliver Elphick olly@lfix.co.uk
Isle of Wight http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver
GPG: 1024D/A54310EA 92C8 39E7 280E 3631
of the amendment as a third
foundation document. He should not produce a procedural mess such as
this!
--
Oliver Elphick olly@lfix.co.uk
Isle of Wight http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver
GPG: 1024D/A54310EA 92C8 39E7 280E 3631 3F0E 1EC0 5664 7A2F
On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 16:35 +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
Oliver Elphick olly@lfix.co.uk writes:
Nevertheless, no foundation document is actually being changed.
Therefore either this is a new foundation document, which requires a
change to the constitution, or it does not require
On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 18:36 +0100, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
Hi,
Oliver Elphick wrote:
I object to being asked to vote on a meaningless proposal. If I vote
for 3, am I voting for an amendment to DFSG, Social Contract or
Constitution? Which one of those? What exactly is the text
the real world rather than the Debian
parallel universe!
An amendment to a document (in the real world) always implies a change
of text; that is how you can tell that it has changed.
--
Oliver Elphick olly@lfix.co.uk
Isle of Wight
On Wed, 2004-07-14 at 12:15, Daniel Silverstone wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Oliver Elphick wrote:
| However, this GR should not have been necessary. I second it in the
| hope that dropping a sledgehammer on their toes will get the ftpmasters
| to learn
On Wed, 2004-07-14 at 13:41, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Oliver Elphick ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040714 14:25]:
It is very discourteous to ignore people. Don't your fellow developers
deserve some human consideration and courtesy?
Did you ever try to speak to Daniel directly? I tried it once
for at least a month on the
lists without any comment from them (that I have seen). No project can
work if its key members operate like that. Communication is an
essential skill.
--
Oliver Elphick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Isle of Wight http
on their toes will get the ftpmasters
to learn to communicate.
--
Oliver Elphick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Isle of Wight http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver
GPG: 1024D/A54310EA 92C8 39E7 280E 3631 3F0E 1EC0 5664 7A2F A543 10EA
On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 21:41, James Troup wrote:
If you want to help with getting amd64 into the archive...
What, in your opinion, is needed for it to go into the archive?
If we know that, we can indeed help. If this is public information,
please provide a URL.
--
Oliver Elphick
your
system. After installation, you will have to run build-mmix to build
the binary package and install it. This doesn't sound like a package
whose maintainer has been careless about copyright.
--
Oliver Elphick[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Isle of Wight, UK
for that,
smalleiffel, now smarteiffel, was an example. It went into non-free
while RMS negotiated with its authors until it became the GNU Eiffel
compiler (and is now in main).
--
Oliver Elphick[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Isle of Wight, UK http://www.lfix.co.uk
for that,
smalleiffel, now smarteiffel, was an example. It went into non-free
while RMS negotiated with its authors until it became the GNU Eiffel
compiler (and is now in main).
--
Oliver Elphick[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Isle of Wight, UK http://www.lfix.co.uk
they are still around),
condemning each other for slight differences of doctrine and having no
effect at all on political life.
--
Oliver Elphick[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Isle of Wight, UK http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver
GPG: 1024D/3E1D0C1C: CA12 09E0
software purity, the FSF exists for
that purpose and has its own archive. Any user who doesn't like
non-free can simply exclude it from his sources.list.
The time to get rid of non-free is when it no longer has any maintained
packages; not until then.
--
Oliver Elphick
software purity, the FSF exists for
that purpose and has its own archive. Any user who doesn't like
non-free can simply exclude it from his sources.list.
The time to get rid of non-free is when it no longer has any maintained
packages; not until then.
--
Oliver Elphick
On Tue, 2003-10-14 at 07:59, Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 07:42:32AM +0100, Oliver Elphick wrote:
Devotee? I don't understand that reference.
Devotee is the voting mechanism.
Thanks. I was imagining something quite different!
--
Oliver Elphick
it comes to reading the constitution.
What you wrote is strained and unidiomatic. That is something that
other non-native English speakers need to understand, lest they think it
is good style and reproduce it.
--
Oliver Elphick[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Isle of Wight, UK
On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 23:02, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 22:44:28 +0100, Oliver Elphick olly@lfix.co.uk said:
Nevertheless, that use of shall is so strange that I had to read
the sentence twice to understand it. It is not correct English.
So you say. I beg
On Tue, 2003-10-14 at 07:59, Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 07:42:32AM +0100, Oliver Elphick wrote:
Devotee? I don't understand that reference.
Devotee is the voting mechanism.
Thanks. I was imagining something quite different!
--
Oliver Elphick
it comes to reading the constitution.
What you wrote is strained and unidiomatic. That is something that
other non-native English speakers need to understand, lest they think it
is good style and reproduce it.
--
Oliver Elphick[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Isle of Wight, UK
does not fit the grammatical rule you quote, because a
voting mechanism is incapable of having or expressing an intention or
purpose. It is just a thing, and you are merely describing how it will
behave, therefore the proper word to use is will.
--
Oliver Elphick
is a volunteer organisation with no money; therefore no prizes
either.
--
Oliver Elphick[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Isle of Wight, UK http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver
GPG: 1024D/3E1D0C1C: CA12 09E0 E8D5 8870 5839 932A 614D 4C34 3E1D 0C1C
: supersession.
--
Oliver Elphick[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Isle of Wight, UK http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver
GPG: 1024D/3E1D0C1C: CA12 09E0 E8D5 8870 5839 932A 614D 4C34 3E1D 0C1C
Who
).
...
+ 5.3 A Foundation Document requires a 3:1 supermajority for its
+ supercession.
Spelling: supersession (and supersede) - the derivation is not the same
as that of concession and concede.
--
Oliver Elphick[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Isle of Wight, UK
option on the
ballot to the original proposal, and as such it will require five seconds.
Respectfully submitted,
I second/sponsor this.
--
Oliver Elphick[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Isle of Wight http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver
PGP: 1024R
28 matches
Mail list logo
