On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 11:40:06AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 05:09:36PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Mmm, i didn't see any December 29 proposal.
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200312/msg00044.html
Ah, ok, sure.
I thought that proposals should
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 11:40:06AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 05:09:36PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Mmm, i didn't see any December 29 proposal.
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200312/msg00044.html
Ah, ok, sure.
I thought that proposals should
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 05:09:36PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Mmm, i didn't see any December 29 proposal.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200312/msg00044.html
--
Raul
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 09:54:51PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:08:01PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:11:50PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:26:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > Since the non-free GR and t
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 05:09:36PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Mmm, i didn't see any December 29 proposal.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200312/msg00044.html
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 09:54:51PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:08:01PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:11:50PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:26:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > Since the non-free GR and t
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:08:01PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:11:50PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:26:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Since the non-free GR and the social contract modification GR
> > > encountered nothing but flamewar
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:04:11PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Yep. But then you all said this was stupid or something, that we were
> loosing time, and ... So, i actually changed minds, and was going to try
> doing a real proposal or something, but as i perfectly know that my
> writing is not of t
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:11:50PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:26:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Since the non-free GR and the social contract modification GR
> > encountered nothing but flamewar,
>
> [...]
>
> > Furthermore, i believe that the real issue is the
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 08:16:52PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:41:27PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Uhm, if it was not a GR proposal, then why did your message[13] say
> > > "non-free removal GR draft"?
> >
> > Please check the meaning of the word "draft" in the dic
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:08:01PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:11:50PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:26:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Since the non-free GR and the social contract modification GR
> > > encountered nothing but flamewar
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:04:11PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Yep. But then you all said this was stupid or something, that we were
> loosing time, and ... So, i actually changed minds, and was going to try
> doing a real proposal or something, but as i perfectly know that my
> writing is not of t
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:11:50PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:26:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Since the non-free GR and the social contract modification GR
> > encountered nothing but flamewar,
>
> [...]
>
> > Furthermore, i believe that the real issue is the
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 08:16:52PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:41:27PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Uhm, if it was not a GR proposal, then why did your message[13] say
> > > "non-free removal GR draft"?
> >
> > Please check the meaning of the word "draft" in the dic
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:41:27PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Uhm, if it was not a GR proposal, then why did your message[13] say
> > "non-free removal GR draft"?
>
> Please check the meaning of the word "draft" in the dictionary. Sure, i
> don't have the chance to be a native english speaker,
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 07:50:42PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:54:16AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:45:54PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Why are you opposing this. Just for the chance to discuss this to death
> > > another year or
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:26:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Since the non-free GR and the social contract modification GR
> encountered nothing but flamewar,
[...]
> Furthermore, i believe that the real issue is the non-free issue, and
> that the social contract GR is only a way to achieve a s
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 11:55:49AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > 4. Oppose GR proposals that cannot be actually voted on in any sane
> > >fashion due to being incompatible with procedures in the
> > >Constitution.
> >
> > (arg, it is difficult to resist being rude, arg, have to control
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:41:27PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Uhm, if it was not a GR proposal, then why did your message[13] say
> > "non-free removal GR draft"?
>
> Please check the meaning of the word "draft" in the dictionary. Sure, i
> don't have the chance to be a native english speaker,
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 07:50:42PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:54:16AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:45:54PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Why are you opposing this. Just for the chance to discuss this to death
> > > another year or
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:26:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Since the non-free GR and the social contract modification GR
> encountered nothing but flamewar,
[...]
> Furthermore, i believe that the real issue is the non-free issue, and
> that the social contract GR is only a way to achieve a s
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 11:55:49AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > 4. Oppose GR proposals that cannot be actually voted on in any sane
> > >fashion due to being incompatible with procedures in the
> > >Constitution.
> >
> > (arg, it is difficult to resist being rude, arg, have to control
[ General note: This message contains some history that may be of
interest regarding the previous attempts to get a vote on the topic. ]
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:32:49AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 12:07:14AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:44:33
[ General note: This message contains some history that may be of
interest regarding the previous attempts to get a vote on the topic. ]
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:32:49AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 12:07:14AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:44:33
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 12:07:14AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:44:33AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > John, you are a fraud, you don't really want to resolve this issue, only
>
> If that were the case, why did I:
>
> 1. Get this issue to a vote back in 2000[1] (though t
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:44:33AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> John, you are a fraud, you don't really want to resolve this issue, only
If that were the case, why did I:
1. Get this issue to a vote back in 2000[1] (though that vote was later
nullified);
2. Second the proposals before us now,
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:19:12AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 05:11:51PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > So, let's start from my poll draft, and let's vote on it.
> >
> > What do you thinkg ? Something like :
>
> I think that it's impossible to vote yes or no to a GR that
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 12:07:14AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:44:33AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > John, you are a fraud, you don't really want to resolve this issue, only
>
> If that were the case, why did I:
>
> 1. Get this issue to a vote back in 2000[1] (though t
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:44:33AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> John, you are a fraud, you don't really want to resolve this issue, only
If that were the case, why did I:
1. Get this issue to a vote back in 2000[1] (though that vote was later
nullified);
2. Second the proposals before us now,
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:19:12AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 05:11:51PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > So, let's start from my poll draft, and let's vote on it.
> >
> > What do you thinkg ? Something like :
>
> I think that it's impossible to vote yes or no to a GR that
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 08:17:39AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:26:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Ok, will you help me draft something, i am not really a good
> > administrative writer, but was thinking about something like :
> > begin of draft Poll to be submitt
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 08:17:39AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:26:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Ok, will you help me draft something, i am not really a good
> > administrative writer, but was thinking about something like :
> > begin of draft Poll to be submitt
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:54:16AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:45:54PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Why are you opposing this. Just for the chance to discuss this to death
> > another year or so ?
>
> No; for precisely the opposite reason. I want a vote now, and no po
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:19:12AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 05:11:51PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > So, let's start from my poll draft, and let's vote on it.
> >
> > What do you thinkg ? Something like :
>
> I think that it's impossible to vote yes or no to a GR that
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:54:16AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:45:54PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Why are you opposing this. Just for the chance to discuss this to death
> > another year or so ?
>
> No; for precisely the opposite reason. I want a vote now, and no po
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 05:11:51PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> So, let's start from my poll draft, and let's vote on it.
>
> What do you thinkg ? Something like :
I think that it's impossible to vote yes or no to a GR that contains 5
different, mutually exclusive, options.
Consider the below. H
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:19:12AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 05:11:51PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > So, let's start from my poll draft, and let's vote on it.
> >
> > What do you thinkg ? Something like :
>
> I think that it's impossible to vote yes or no to a GR that
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:54:16AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:45:54PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > The only way clearly say what will happen is to make it part of the
> > > ballot. Your poll will *not* say what will happen, and nobody else here
> > > can say what wi
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:34:45AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:26:18PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:19:37AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > Well, why not have a non-free GR, and add a social contract hostile
> > > amendment, so that people ca
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 05:11:51PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> So, let's start from my poll draft, and let's vote on it.
>
> What do you thinkg ? Something like :
I think that it's impossible to vote yes or no to a GR that contains 5
different, mutually exclusive, options.
Consider the below. H
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:19:37AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:07:13PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 08:54:32AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > Ah, sure, but see what happened last time this came up.
> >
> > And it would be hypocrit. The real issu
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 08:54:32AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:26:44PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Why would we want something non-binding? I cannot think of a single
> > > situation in which that will actually resolve anything.
> >
> > Why not ?
> >
> > Once we
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:45:54PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > The only way clearly say what will happen is to make it part of the
> > ballot. Your poll will *not* say what will happen, and nobody else here
> > can say what will happen either, because we do not know how a vote will
> > turn out.
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:54:16AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:45:54PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > The only way clearly say what will happen is to make it part of the
> > > ballot. Your poll will *not* say what will happen, and nobody else here
> > > can say what wi
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:26:18PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:19:37AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > Well, why not have a non-free GR, and add a social contract hostile
> > amendment, so that people can vote on both at once, and rank their
> > preferences appropriately?
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:34:45AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:26:18PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:19:37AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > Well, why not have a non-free GR, and add a social contract hostile
> > > amendment, so that people ca
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 08:17:39AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:26:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Ok, will you help me draft something, i am not really a good
> > administrative writer, but was thinking about something like :
> >
> > begin of draft Poll to be su
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:19:37AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:07:13PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 08:54:32AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > Ah, sure, but see what happened last time this came up.
> >
> > And it would be hypocrit. The real issu
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:07:13PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 08:54:32AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> Ah, sure, but see what happened last time this came up.
>
> And it would be hypocrit. The real issue is what do we want to do about
> non-free, not that we want to ammend
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 08:54:32AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:26:44PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Why would we want something non-binding? I cannot think of a single
> > > situation in which that will actually resolve anything.
> >
> > Why not ?
> >
> > Once we
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:45:54PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > The only way clearly say what will happen is to make it part of the
> > ballot. Your poll will *not* say what will happen, and nobody else here
> > can say what will happen either, because we do not know how a vote will
> > turn out.
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:26:44PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Why would we want something non-binding? I cannot think of a single
> > situation in which that will actually resolve anything.
>
> Why not ?
>
> Once we have the result of this, first it will put a stop to the whole
> speculation
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:26:18PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:19:37AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > Well, why not have a non-free GR, and add a social contract hostile
> > amendment, so that people can vote on both at once, and rank their
> > preferences appropriately?
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 08:17:39AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:26:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Ok, will you help me draft something, i am not really a good
> > administrative writer, but was thinking about something like :
> >
> > begin of draft Poll to be su
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:07:13PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 08:54:32AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> Ah, sure, but see what happened last time this came up.
>
> And it would be hypocrit. The real issue is what do we want to do about
> non-free, not that we want to ammend
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:26:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Ok, will you help me draft something, i am not really a good
> administrative writer, but was thinking about something like :
>
> begin of draft Poll to be submitted to vote
Why would we want something non-binding? I cannot
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:26:44PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Why would we want something non-binding? I cannot think of a single
> > situation in which that will actually resolve anything.
>
> Why not ?
>
> Once we have the result of this, first it will put a stop to the whole
> speculation
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:26:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Ok, will you help me draft something, i am not really a good
> administrative writer, but was thinking about something like :
>
> begin of draft Poll to be submitted to vote
Why would we want something non-binding? I cannot
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:02:41PM +0100, David N. Welton wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Yes, let's have a non-binding poll on this subject, so that this
> > meanigless flamewars can stop, and we can actually work on a way to
> > solve this following what the DDs really wan
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:02:41PM +0100, David N. Welton wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Yes, let's have a non-binding poll on this subject, so that this
> > meanigless flamewars can stop, and we can actually work on a way to
> > solve this following what the DDs really wan
60 matches
Mail list logo
