On Thu, 9 Feb 2006, Marco d'Itri wrote:
Well, maybe the people who mislabeled the everything is software vote
as an editorial change and deceived many other developers should have
tought about this.
Maybe we could suggest another editorial change and revert to the
previous wording (not
On Thu, 9 Feb 2006, Jérôme Marant wrote:
I'd propose to revert this and clearly define what software is.
I fully agree. The Holier than Stallman stuff is really getting
ridiculous. After the firmware madeness, now the documentation madeness.
And after that, the font madeness maybe ? (after all,
On Thu, 9 Feb 2006, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le jeudi 09 février 2006 à 11:12 +0100, Xavier Roche a écrit :
Maybe we could suggest another editorial change and revert to the
previous wording (not everything is software)
This has already been voted. And the answer was no.
Well, maybe
On Thu, 9 Feb 2006, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
Well, maybe the wording was not deceptive enough ?
Maybe people should get re-acquinted with GR 2004-04 and its results before
they bring up GR 2004-03, even for jokes.
No, no. The funny joke is to modify the constitution with a deceptive
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 01:45:40AM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
Hereby I am proposing an amendment to the GR about GFDL opened by
Anthony Towns [Sun, 01 Jan 2006 15:02:04 +1000]
GNU Free Documentation License protects the freedom,
it is compatible with Debian Free Software Guidelines
I second
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004, Philip Charles wrote:
Admins are not the only people interested in 64-bit.
Why not release r1 (r2, rx) when amd64 is ready? Whould it realy matter
if there were minimal changes in the other archs provided that amd64 was
released asap?
This is exactly what I was
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 02:43:59PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
recognizing that the AMD64-based architectures are likely to become the
most widespread on personal computers and workstations in a near future,
hereby resolves:
Seconded. It's high time to push AMD64 on production.
On Sat, 22 May 2004, Graham Wilson wrote:
On the question on what software should be allowed in the main section
of our archive (The official Debian distribution) for our forthcoming
release code-named Sarge, we resolve that all programs must meet the
I assume programs != firmwares
On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 01:06:00AM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote:
* Can Craig and people who seconded original proposal [2] to second
this as the formal rationale for Craig's proposal [1]?
Yes, seconded.
Craig Sanders proposed the following resolution [1] (reformatted):
On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 09:44:03AM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote:
The Debian Project,
hereby resolves:
1. that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within
the General Resolution Editorial Amendments To The Social
On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 09:44:03AM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote:
The Debian Project,
hereby resolves:
1. that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within
the General Resolution Editorial Amendments To The Social
On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 01:06:00AM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote:
* Can Craig and people who seconded original proposal [2] to second
this as the formal rationale for Craig's proposal [1]?
Yes, seconded.
Craig Sanders proposed the following resolution [1] (reformatted):
On Wed, 5 May 2004, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
I have the suspect that this choice will marginalize
Debian in respect to other distros. I'm not sure this will be a great
benefit for the free software community, at last.
What's next step? Remove non-free support at all with a new GR?
On Wed, 5 May 2004, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
I have the suspect that this choice will marginalize
Debian in respect to other distros. I'm not sure this will be a great
benefit for the free software community, at last.
What's next step? Remove non-free support at all with a new GR?
Hi,
On 29 Apr 2004, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
And so the question is why can I not modify these bits? and the
answer is: the author refuses to permit me access to the source and
restricts my copying of the bits.
I fully agree: the firmware is a evil, proprietary code. But it is always
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 09:45:18AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
i propose an amendment that deletes everything but clause 1 of this proposal,
so that the entire proposal now reads:
that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within the
General Resolution Editorial Amendments To
On 29 Apr 2004, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
If firmware were part of the connected hardware, it would be part of
the hardware, and the kernel wouldn't be loading anything.
The firmware is a detached part of the connected hardware, nothing more.
The loading process just reconnects this part so
Hi,
On 29 Apr 2004, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
The firmware is a detached part of the connected hardware, nothing more.
The loading process just reconnects this part so that the hardware can
work.
I am confused. When I purchase the hardware, why do I not get this,
since it is after all
Hi,
On 29 Apr 2004, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
And so the question is why can I not modify these bits? and the
answer is: the author refuses to permit me access to the source and
restricts my copying of the bits.
I fully agree: the firmware is a evil, proprietary code. But it is always
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 09:45:18AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
i propose an amendment that deletes everything but clause 1 of this proposal,
so that the entire proposal now reads:
that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within the
General Resolution Editorial Amendments To
On 29 Apr 2004, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
If firmware were part of the connected hardware, it would be part of
the hardware, and the kernel wouldn't be loading anything.
The firmware is a detached part of the connected hardware, nothing more.
The loading process just reconnects this part so
Hi,
On 29 Apr 2004, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
The firmware is a detached part of the connected hardware, nothing more.
The loading process just reconnects this part so that the hardware can
work.
I am confused. When I purchase the hardware, why do I not get this,
since it is after all
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 03:28:33 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
In order to be counted, seconds have to be signed.
Sorry, my gpg signature wasn't sent apparently.
I also second the Steve Langasek's proposal, with Duncan Findlay's amendment.
pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Umm. I'm confused. These are two distinct options. Did you
mean to second Steve Langasek's proposal? Or Duncan Findlay's
amendment.? Or both?
Both, despite Steve rejected the amendment.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 08:41:35PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
The Debian Project,
hereby resolves:
..
I will also second this proposal.
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 03:28:33 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
In order to be counted, seconds have to be signed.
Sorry, my gpg signature wasn't sent apparently.
I also second the Steve Langasek's proposal, with Duncan Findlay's amendment.
pgp1Xan0oDLY2.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Umm. I'm confused. These are two distinct options. Did you
mean to second Steve Langasek's proposal? Or Duncan Findlay's
amendment.? Or both?
Both, despite Steve rejected the amendment.
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
Perhaps for our next GR, we can contemplate whether it's appropriate
that less than 20% of the developers is enough to change one of our most
important documents.
Especially considering that it was intended to be only a matter of several
Editorial
28 matches
Mail list logo
