On Sun May 24 17:20, Luk Claes wrote:
> > What would you call the vote to ship non-free software in etch? Because
> > that is what I mean. We are agreeing to do something which the
> > foundation document said we would not, but only for a certain period of
> > time (etch).
>
> Well, that's rather
Matthew Johnson wrote:
> On Sun May 10 18:34, Luk Claes wrote:
>>> 3. Option X overrides a foundation document, possibly temporarily (?)
>> Not possible. You can only override a decision and amending a foundation
>> document is the previous option.
>
> What would you call the vote to ship non-free
[ Forwarded on behalf of Sven Luther ]
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 09:31:40AM +, Philipp Kern wrote:
>
> On 2009-05-13, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > ,
> >|5. Works that do not meet our free software standards
> >|
> >| We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of works
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 10:53 +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
DFSG is a guideline and a target: we must no go far as the nearest point
we reached, but it still a guideline.
Consider:
- we never had a full DFSG Debian (also when DFSG was written)
- we have "RC" also on
On 2009-05-13, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> ,
>|5. Works that do not meet our free software standards
>|
>| We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of works
>| that do not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We
>| have created "contrib" and "non-fr
On 2009-05-13, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> DFSG is a guideline and a target: we must no go far as the nearest point
>> we reached, but it still a guideline.
>> Consider:
>> - we never had a full DFSG Debian (also when DFSG was written)
>> - we have "RC" also on stable releases. What should we do
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-05-12 at 20:09 +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
>>> Either Social Contract section one and the DFSG prohibit the
>>> distribution of a non-free blob in the release, or they do not.
>> This 'in the release' is bogus, I guess you mean in 'main'?
>
> Debian is only fr
On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 10:53 +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
>
> DFSG is a guideline and a target: we must no go far as the nearest point
> we reached, but it still a guideline.
> Consider:
> - we never had a full DFSG Debian (also when DFSG was written)
> - we have "RC" also on stable releases.
On Tue, 2009-05-12 at 20:09 +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
> > Either Social Contract section one and the DFSG prohibit the
> > distribution of a non-free blob in the release, or they do not.
>
> This 'in the release' is bogus, I guess you mean in 'main'?
Debian is only free software. Non-free is distr
On Tue, May 12 2009, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 06:59:41PM +0100, Matthew Johnson wrote:
>> On Sun May 10 18:34, Luk Claes wrote:
>> > > 3. Option X overrides a foundation document, possibly temporarily (?)
>> >
>> > Not possible. You can only override a decision and amendin
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
On Tue, 2009-05-12 at 17:06 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
I think this is the core of the disagreement. I do not call it a
temporary override of a foundation document; I call it a temporary
practical consensus between "the needs of our users" and "the needs of
the free
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-05-12 at 17:06 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> I think this is the core of the disagreement. I do not call it a
>> temporary override of a foundation document; I call it a temporary
>> practical consensus between "the needs of our users" and "the needs of
On Tue, 2009-05-12 at 17:06 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> I think this is the core of the disagreement. I do not call it a
> temporary override of a foundation document; I call it a temporary
> practical consensus between "the needs of our users" and "the needs of
> the free software community".
On Tue May 12 17:06, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > What would you call the vote to ship non-free software in etch? Because
> > that is what I mean. We are agreeing to do something which the
> > foundation document said we would not, but only for a certain period of
> > time (etch).
> >
> > I don't _c
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 06:59:41PM +0100, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> On Sun May 10 18:34, Luk Claes wrote:
> > > 3. Option X overrides a foundation document, possibly temporarily (?)
> >
> > Not possible. You can only override a decision and amending a foundation
> > document is the previous option.
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 01:12:27PM +0100, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> On Sun May 10 04:13, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Hmm, I wouldn't second this in its present form because I don't see any
> > reason to change the supermajority requirement for amending the constitution
> > - I don't think anyone has e
On Sun May 10 18:34, Luk Claes wrote:
> > 3. Option X overrides a foundation document, possibly temporarily (?)
>
> Not possible. You can only override a decision and amending a foundation
> document is the previous option.
What would you call the vote to ship non-free software in etch? Because
t
Matthew Johnson wrote:
> On Sat May 02 00:32, Luk Claes wrote:
>> PS: There is a reason why I send the mail about the definitions of the
>> terms even if Kurt as well as you seem to ignore it.
>
> I posted a while back citing several types of vote option [0], with some
> examlpes. I'm maybe not
On Sun May 10 04:13, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Hmm, I wouldn't second this in its present form because I don't see any
> reason to change the supermajority requirement for amending the constitution
> - I don't think anyone has ever disputed the meaning of this requirement,
> and it's been there since
On Sat, May 02, 2009 at 12:32:26AM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
>> Option 1 - No Supermajority
>> We do not believe that we should require anything more than a simple
>> majority for any changes to the constitution or foundation documents.
>>- replace Constitution 4.1 point 2 with "Amend this cons
On Sat May 02 00:32, Luk Claes wrote:
> I think trying to propose many options together is very wrong as you are
> very probably not objective for all the options nor will you be able to
> word it properly for the ones that do care about an option you don't really
> care about.
I would vote all
Matthew Johnson wrote:
As suggested [0] I think we should clarify these issues before any other
votes. As such I'd like to suggest a draft for the vote.
I'm proposing several options for a couple of reasons. Several of them I
would rank above further discussion, but I also want to make sure that
As suggested [0] I think we should clarify these issues before any other
votes. As such I'd like to suggest a draft for the vote.
I'm proposing several options for a couple of reasons. Several of them I
would rank above further discussion, but I also want to make sure that
there is an option for e
23 matches
Mail list logo
