> | ... It would be a bad idea to write a long document `under the gun'. ...
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 01:41:22AM +0200, Arthur de Jong wrote:
> This pretty much pleads agains proposal E.
The constitution is long. Proposal E is not long.
> Would it be correct to assume that only the passing of pr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> The technical committee is waiting to see the outcome of this GR, but
> informally
>http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2004/06/msg2.html
If the RM has delegated the descision of the requirements for distributing
sarge, could the TC take a
On Wed, 2004-06-23 at 09:41, Arthur de Jong wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> > The technical committee is waiting to see the outcome of this GR, but
> > informally
> >http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2004/06/msg2.html
>
> If the RM has delegated the desci
On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 11:58:31AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Andrew Suffield:
>
> >> The discussion about fonts, closed and semi-closed data formats, and
> >> data formats which are inherently lossy and for which we lack the
> >> lossless source files has not really started yet. It will ta
* Andrew Suffield:
>> The discussion about fonts, closed and semi-closed data formats, and
>> data formats which are inherently lossy and for which we lack the
>> lossless source files has not really started yet. It will take months
>> until Debian agrees on policies for these cases, and further
On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 05:19:22PM +0200, Arthur de Jong wrote:
> And to not make the same mistake twice, is there some statement from the
> release manager somewhere regarding this vote?
The release manager has said that he feels making release policy
without the involvement of the rest of the pr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> Well, most of those supporters probably did not believe the proposal
> would or should have any effect on sarge's release.
>
> At least that was the case for me...
And to not make the same mistake twice, is there some statement from the
release man
On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 05:19:22PM +0200, Arthur de Jong wrote:
> And to not make the same mistake twice, is there some statement from the
> release manager somewhere regarding this vote? I would like to know
> exactly what effect the different choices would have on the release of
> sarge, accoring
> "RM" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
RM> On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 08:41:55AM +0200, Milan Zamazal wrote:
>> be abused by focusing on the exact wording of the SC. Taking the
>> wording literally and "solving" the problems by postponing or
>> reverting the SC changes
On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 08:41:55AM +0200, Milan Zamazal wrote:
> be abused by focusing on the exact wording of the SC. Taking the
> wording literally and "solving" the problems by postponing or reverting
> the SC changes looks like an ugly hack to me.
At least three of the ballot options do not h
Andrew Suffield schrieb:
> Nonsense. There is generally nothing to discuss, and where there is,
> it was settled a long time ago.
If "long time ago" was before the last GR - situation has changed since
then.
Ciao,
Eike
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subj
* Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040621 00:40]:
> On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 10:29:01PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > * Andrew Suffield:
> >
> > > Ah yes, that's another of those common memes. It's completely
> > > unfounded. There is no reason to think that it would take a long time
> > > t
> "ES" == Eike \"zyro\" Sauer writes:
ES> Milan Zamazal schrieb:
>> so Debian shouldn't make to look itself even more foolish by
>> making and reverting changes without really good reasons.
ES> Adult people should not be afraid of undoing bad decisions, and
ES> "We will n
> "RM" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
RM> On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 08:47:56PM +0200, Milan Zamazal wrote:
>> My analysis is that this GR is simply insane.
RM> You think it's out of touch with reality?
Yes, I feel it as a sort of artificial or exaggerated problem.
> > Ah, never retain from a ad-hominem attacks, eh?
On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 12:00:58AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Oh, come on. That was not an argument, therefore it cannot *possibly*
> be an instance of argumentum ad hominem.
How is missing the point of what he said relevant?
--
Raul
--
On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 12:00:58AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 10:59:44AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > Andreas made an ill-formed proposal which the project secretary
> > > rejected for this ballot, and refused all suggestions about how it
> > > should be properly f
On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 10:59:44AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > Andreas made an ill-formed proposal which the project secretary
> > rejected for this ballot, and refused all suggestions about how it
> > should be properly formed. He appears to hold a grudge, I'm not sure
> > why.
>
> Ah, never
On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 10:29:01PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Andrew Suffield:
>
> > Ah yes, that's another of those common memes. It's completely
> > unfounded. There is no reason to think that it would take a long time
> > to evict all the offending material - it's trivial in most cases.
>
Milan Zamazal schrieb:
> so Debian shouldn't make to look itself even more foolish by making
> and reverting changes without really good reasons.
Adult people should not be afraid of undoing bad decisions,
and "We will not hide problems".
Ciao,
Eike
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email t
* Josip Rodin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040620 23:10]:
> On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 10:07:35PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > See http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/06/msg0.html (for the
> > proposal, seconded by Eduard Bloch, Michael Schiansky, Marco d'Itri,
> > Marc Haber, John H. Robinson (IV
On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 11:05:37PM +0200, joy wrote:
> > See http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/06/msg0.html (for the
> > proposal, seconded by Eduard Bloch, Michael Schiansky, Marco d'Itri,
> > Marc Haber, John H. Robinson (IV), giving the required quorum of the
> > constitution), and re
On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 10:07:35PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > > > [ ] Choice 6: Reaffirm the current SC[needs 1:1]
> > > Choice 6 is titled wrong. It's not a reaffirmation of the social
> > > contract, it's an affirmation of a certain interpretation of the
> > > social cont
On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 08:47:56PM +0200, Milan Zamazal wrote:
> My analysis is that this GR is simply insane.
You think it's out of touch with reality?
> The previous GR (2004 vote 003) was presented as editorial amendments,
> so it can hardly have significant influence on our releases. From th
* Andrew Suffield:
> Ah yes, that's another of those common memes. It's completely
> unfounded. There is no reason to think that it would take a long time
> to evict all the offending material - it's trivial in most cases.
The discussion about fonts, closed and semi-closed data formats, and
data
* Chris Cheney ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040620 19:40]:
> On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 10:59:44AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > Are you dumb or a lying? Again: Our users are served good by:
> > - a current stable release
> > - free software
> >
> > At the moment, we don't have any of them. Our stable rele
* Josip Rodin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040620 17:10]:
> On Sat, Jun 19, 2004 at 10:56:49PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > > [ ] Choice 6: Reaffirm the current SC[needs 1:1]
> > Choice 6 is titled wrong. It's not a reaffirmation of the social
> > contract, it's an affirmation of a c
On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 12:32:24PM -0500, Chris Cheney wrote:
> You're real world doesn't look like mine at least unless you intend to
> release Sarge with nearly 300 RC bugs? By the time all those RC bugs
> are fixed we could easily have removed all the non-free software from
> Debian main as wel
My analysis is that this GR is simply insane.
The previous GR (2004 vote 003) was presented as editorial amendments,
so it can hardly have significant influence on our releases. From this
point of view proposals A, B, C, E make no sense to me.
I can't see any good reason to support proposal F --
On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 10:59:44AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> Are you dumb or a lying? Again: Our users are served good by:
> - a current stable release
> - free software
>
> At the moment, we don't have any of them. Our stable release contains
> items which are non-free, according to your inte
On Sat, Jun 19, 2004 at 10:56:49PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > [ ] Choice 6: Reaffirm the current SC[needs 1:1]
> Choice 6 is titled wrong. It's not a reaffirmation of the social
> contract, it's an affirmation of a certain interpretation of the
> social contract. An affirma
On Sat, Jun 19, 2004 at 07:47:07PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > I would point out that historically, Debian does not release before it
> > > is ready, and that's why our releases usually work so well. Option 3
> > > is the "release before it is ready, because releasing is more
> > > importan
> > Software which can't be ported, which can't have security problems
> > resolved, which can't be delivered, and which can't be used are all
> > examples of problems we're trying to avoid.
On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 01:39:39PM +1000, Ben Burton wrote:
> Does "can't be used" include "had its documen
* Thomas Bushnell, BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040620 05:25]:
> But I was responding to the claim that "my" camp is somehow not
> interested in the well-being of our users, or that "we" place it
> second-best. We place it first-best--just as you do; the disagreement
> is not about whether or how impo
* Thomas Bushnell, BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040620 03:40]:
> Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Option 6 is the position that our users don't matter, and it's not
> > important to release.
> Hrm. I think giving our users non-free software hurts them. I'm
> against hurting our users, t
* Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040620 01:10]:
> [This is just a thinly veiled personal attack; filling in the gaps for
> people who haven't followed -vote]
>
> On Sat, Jun 19, 2004 at 10:56:49PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 12:59:33PM -0500, Debian Project Secr
* Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040620 00:55]:
> [This guy is a troll; just rebutting the misinformation so that people
> aren't confused]
Would you mind to not do ad-hominem attacks?
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D
On Sat, Jun 19, 2004 at 11:43:17PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> [This guy is a troll; just rebutting the misinformation so that people
> aren't confused]
Yeah, right.
> On Sat, Jun 19, 2004 at 09:23:05PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 12:59:33PM -0500, Debian Proje
> Software which can't be ported, which can't have security problems
> resolved, which can't be delivered, and which can't be used are all
> examples of problems we're trying to avoid.
Does "can't be used" include "had its documentation removed"?
b.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTE
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> An alternative view is that it hurts our users when we don't support
> the software we give them, and that the DFSG and Social Contract
> are aimed at making us as effective as possible at supporting
> our users.
Yes, my point is that we are *all* interes
On Sat, Jun 19, 2004 at 06:18:01PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Hrm. I think giving our users non-free software hurts them. I'm
> against hurting our users, therefore I'm against releasing non-free
> software.
An alternative view is that it hurts our users when we don't support
the softw
Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040619 15:25]:
> > Summary: you probably want 3 or 6.
> Summary: I don't want a biased summary of someone who broke the
> process of the release of sarge.
Curious. Andrew Suffield all by himself? What about all t
On Sat, Jun 19, 2004 at 09:23:05PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>
> [...] So, leave it at that, and don't pretend to offer voting
> advice when all you really do is advocate your own position. If you want
> to advocate your own position, that's fine, there's nothing wrong with
> that; but in that
[This is just a thinly veiled personal attack; filling in the gaps for
people who haven't followed -vote]
On Sat, Jun 19, 2004 at 10:56:49PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 12:59:33PM -0500, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
> > > [ ] Choice 1: Postpone changes until Septem
[This guy is a troll; just rebutting the misinformation so that people
aren't confused]
On Sat, Jun 19, 2004 at 09:23:05PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 12:59:33PM -0500, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
> > > [ ] Choice 1: Postpone changes until September 2004 [needs
* Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040619 15:25]:
> Summary: you probably want 3 or 6.
Summary: I don't want a biased summary of someone who broke the
process of the release of sarge.
> On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 12:59:33PM -0500, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
> > [ ] Choice 1: Postpone chan
On Sat, Jun 19, 2004 at 02:11:14PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Options 1-3 are essentially clones with subtle variations.
At the moment, I think I'm going to vote at least one of those below
the default option, and at least one above.
Reading between the lines: you plan on voting all three be
On Sat, Jun 19, 2004 at 02:11:14PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Summary: you probably want 3 or 6.
We've had this discussion a while ago. What's the idea? Getting people
to vote the way you think is most appropriate?
> On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 12:59:33PM -0500, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
>
On 19-Jun-04, 13:48 (CDT), Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 19, 2004 at 03:35:58PM +0200, Eike zyro Sauer wrote:
> > 6 is about waiting with sarge until we sorted out everything which
> > was rendered unfree by the "editorial changes". Which will be a long time.
>
> Ah yes
On Sat, Jun 19, 2004 at 03:35:58PM +0200, Eike zyro Sauer wrote:
> 6 is about waiting with sarge until we sorted out everything which
> was rendered unfree by the "editorial changes". Which will be a long time.
Ah yes, that's another of those common memes. It's completely
unfounded. There is no re
On Sat, Jun 19, 2004 at 05:31:33PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > I would point out that historically, Debian does not release before it
> > is ready, and that's why our releases usually work so well. Option 3
> > is the "release before it is ready, because releasing is more
> > important than being
On Sat, Jun 19, 2004 at 03:35:58PM +0200, Eike zyro Sauer wrote:
> PS: I'm still sure that 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 include dropping the GPL text
> from Debian (AKA suicide) sooner or later. I don't want to discuss this
> again, as it has been discussed in depth already, I just want to mention.
Yeah, but
On Sat, Jun 19, 2004 at 02:11:14PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> 3 is the same as 2, but is less intrusive while still accomplishing the
> same goal - it doesn't mess with unrelated parts of the SC.
> (If you want 3 but with a time limit, vote for 'further discussion' and
> next time participate
Andrew Suffield schrieb:
> On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 12:59:33PM -0500, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
>> [ ] Choice 1: Postpone changes until September 2004 [needs 3:1]
>> [ ] Choice 2: Postpone changes until Sarge releases [needs 3:1]
>> [ ] Choice 3: Add apology to Social Contract
> There are essentially two positions here, which appear to be best
> represented by options 3 and 6. In summary, these positions are:
>
> ---
> Debian is about releasing software
> ---
> Debian is about releasing free software
> ---
Surely this terse (and not exactly unbiased) summary has the s
Summary: you probably want 3 or 6.
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 12:59:33PM -0500, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
> [ ] Choice 1: Postpone changes until September 2004 [needs 3:1]
> [ ] Choice 2: Postpone changes until Sarge releases [needs 3:1]
> [ ] Choice 3: Add apology to Social Contract
55 matches
Mail list logo
