On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 09:28:18 +0100 (CET), Peter Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> Manoj Srivastava:
>> I think you need a better grammar book. I shall ... They will. I
>> will ... They shall.
> I thought your intent was to use it in the sense that it is not
> going to have the option (pa
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 04:01:24 -0400, Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> On Wed, 2003-10-15 at 02:20, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> I think you need a better grammar book.
> I think you need a grammar book published after 1908[1] The English
> spoken in 1908 is not the English spoken tod
Manoj Srivastava:
> I think you need a better grammar book.
> I shall ... They will.
> I will ... They shall.
I thought your intent was to use it in the sense that it is not going
to have the option (passive), which would be "it will not", not the
sense that you do not want it to have
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 04:01:24 -0400, Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, 2003-10-15 at 02:20, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> I think you need a better grammar book.
> I think you need a grammar book published after 1908[1] The English
> spoken in 1908 is not the English spoken toda
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 09:28:18 +0100 (CET), Peter Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava:
>> I think you need a better grammar book. I shall ... They will. I
>> will ... They shall.
> I thought your intent was to use it in the sense that it is not
> going to have the option (pas
On Wed, 2003-10-15 at 02:20, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I think you need a better grammar book.
I think you need a grammar book published after 1908[1] The English
spoken in 1908 is not the English spoken today. And getting weird of
weird rules is certainly a nice improvement --- English has
Hi,
Manoj Srivastava:
> On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 06:29:33 +0100 (CET), Peter Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> said:
>
> I think you need a better grammar book.
> I shall ... They will.
> I will ... They shall.
>
Don't use a confusing rule when a simpler one will suffice.
The simple rule i
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 06:29:33 +0100 (CET), Peter Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> Manoj Srivastava:
>> If people cannot understand: "Do _NOT_ encrypt your ballot; the
>> voting mechanism shall not be able to decrypt your message." they
>> should not be getting a say in amending our constitut
Manoj Srivastava:
> I think you need a better grammar book.
> I shall ... They will.
> I will ... They shall.
I thought your intent was to use it in the sense that it is not going
to have the option (passive), which would be "it will not", not the
sense that you do not want it to have
On Wed, 2003-10-15 at 02:20, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I think you need a better grammar book.
I think you need a grammar book published after 1908[1] The English
spoken in 1908 is not the English spoken today. And getting weird of
weird rules is certainly a nice improvement --- English has
Hi,
Manoj Srivastava:
> On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 06:29:33 +0100 (CET), Peter Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> I think you need a better grammar book.
> I shall ... They will.
> I will ... They shall.
>
Don't use a confusing rule when a simpler one will suffice.
The simple rule is t
Manoj Srivastava:
> If people cannot understand:
> "Do _NOT_ encrypt your ballot; the voting mechanism shall not be
> able to decrypt your message."
> they should not be getting a say in amending our constitution.
To me, the meaning seems clear: The voting software is located in
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 06:29:33 +0100 (CET), Peter Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava:
>> If people cannot understand: "Do _NOT_ encrypt your ballot; the
>> voting mechanism shall not be able to decrypt your message." they
>> should not be getting a say in amending our constituti
Manoj Srivastava:
> If people cannot understand:
> "Do _NOT_ encrypt your ballot; the voting mechanism shall not be
> able to decrypt your message."
> they should not be getting a say in amending our constitution.
To me, the meaning seems clear: The voting software is located in
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 10:39:24PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Will implies a wish as well. You think Devotee can have
> > wishes, but not intents? You should probably learn about the concept
> > of anthropomorphism.
>
> "The rock will fall at 9.8 m/s/s."
>
> You'd
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 13:09:41 -0600, Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Or you care far too much about whether someone will think the system
> might someday handle them (unless you're the Project Secretary for
> Life, though, your successor could, in theory, implement it - which
> means the em
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 13:09:41 -0600, Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 10:42:31AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 08:54:38 -0600, Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> said:
>>
>> > The best answer, thus, is probably to remove the entire
>> > construc
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 13:09:41 -0600, Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 10:42:31AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 08:54:38 -0600, Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> said:
>>
>> > The best answer, thus, is probably to remove the entire
>> > construc
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 10:39:24PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Will implies a wish as well. You think Devotee can have
> > wishes, but not intents? You should probably learn about the concept
> > of anthropomorphism.
>
> "The rock will fall at 9.8 m/s/s."
>
> You'd
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 13:09:41 -0600, Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Or you care far too much about whether someone will think the system
> might someday handle them (unless you're the Project Secretary for
> Life, though, your successor could, in theory, implement it - which
> means the em
On Tuesday, Oct 14, 2003, at 12:37 US/Eastern, Dylan Thurston wrote:
But surely, (a) this is not a big deal, and (b) it's rather late to
fix this?
as for a, yes -- it's no big deal. As for b, the call for votes hasn't
gone out, so I guess it could be fixed. Probably not worth the effort,
th
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 10:42:31AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 08:54:38 -0600, Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > The best answer, thus, is probably to remove the entire construct,
> > since it is easily confusing and prone to argument, and replace it
> > with a s
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 12:36:57 -0400, Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> On Tuesday, Oct 14, 2003, at 05:53 US/Eastern, Manoj Srivastava
> wrote:
>>> As i understand it, a majority is 50% +1, while anything else is a
>>> super-majority. There is no such thing as a 75% majority or a 60%
On Tuesday, Oct 14, 2003, at 12:37 US/Eastern, Dylan Thurston wrote:
But surely, (a) this is not a big deal, and (b) it's rather late to
fix this?
as for a, yes -- it's no big deal. As for b, the call for votes hasn't
gone out, so I guess it could be fixed. Probably not worth the effort,
though.
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 10:42:31AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 08:54:38 -0600, Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > The best answer, thus, is probably to remove the entire construct,
> > since it is easily confusing and prone to argument, and replace it
> > with a s
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 12:36:57 -0400, Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tuesday, Oct 14, 2003, at 05:53 US/Eastern, Manoj Srivastava
> wrote:
>>> As i understand it, a majority is 50% +1, while anything else is a
>>> super-majority. There is no such thing as a 75% majority or a 60%
On 2003-10-14, Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --=-+Y+8urcJMKE7MvxkX+xD
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 21:28, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
>> And what is the difference between a 3:1 majority
On Tuesday, Oct 14, 2003, at 05:53 US/Eastern, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
As i understand it, a majority is 50% +1, while anything else is a
super-majority. There is no such thing as a 75% majority or a 60%
majority. These are super-majorities, since they are clearly more
than a majority.
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 13:13:21 +0200, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 04:53:48AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 11:06:52 +0200, Sven Luther
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>> > On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 03:29:23AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 08:54:38 -0600, Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> The best answer, thus, is probably to remove the entire construct,
> since it is easily confusing and prone to argument, and replace it
> with a simpler and more easily construed one, such as "The voting
> mechanism cannot
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 03:08:25AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Additionally, I have observed that native speakers have
> discarded the distinction between shall and will, and never learned
> the rules governing the different usage, so one can very seldom trust
> the gut of the native
On 2003-10-14, Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --=-+Y+8urcJMKE7MvxkX+xD
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 21:28, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
>> And what is the difference between a 3:1 majority
On Tuesday, Oct 14, 2003, at 05:53 US/Eastern, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
As i understand it, a majority is 50% +1, while anything else is a
super-majority. There is no such thing as a 75% majority or a 60%
majority. These are super-majorities, since they are clearly more
than a majority.
Then your u
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 13:13:21 +0200, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 04:53:48AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 11:06:52 +0200, Sven Luther
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>> > On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 03:29:23AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 08:54:38 -0600, Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> The best answer, thus, is probably to remove the entire construct,
> since it is easily confusing and prone to argument, and replace it
> with a simpler and more easily construed one, such as "The voting
> mechanism cannot
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 03:08:25AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Additionally, I have observed that native speakers have
> discarded the distinction between shall and will, and never learned
> the rules governing the different usage, so one can very seldom trust
> the gut of the native
Hi,
Oliver Elphick:
> The destruction of good English
> teaching began with the move to comprehensive schooling beginning in
> 1967.
That must be the reason why the countries on the top of the (in)famous
Pisa ranking list have comprehensive school systems. :-
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 04:53:48AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 11:06:52 +0200, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 03:29:23AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 04:09:47 -0400, Anthony DeRobertis
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 01:37:59PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I believe the juxtaposition is more than mere happenstance, but that
> nevertheless the two documents are easily separable, are almost
> invariably discussed as separate units within the project, and that they
> serve distinct func
On 2003-10-14 10:01:54 +0100 Oliver Elphick wrote:
The destruction of good English
teaching began with the move to comprehensive schooling beginning in
1967.
Sir,
I find the assertion of a link between comprehensive schooling in
England and poor English language instruction wholly absurd. T
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 11:06:52 +0200, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 03:29:23AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 04:09:47 -0400, Anthony DeRobertis
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>> > On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 21:28, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> >> A
Hi,
Oliver Elphick:
> The destruction of good English
> teaching began with the move to comprehensive schooling beginning in
> 1967.
That must be the reason why the countries on the top of the (in)famous
Pisa ranking list have comprehensive school systems. :-
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 10:01:54 +0100, Oliver Elphick said:
> On Tue, 2003-10-14 at 09:08, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> > Manoj, you say you were taught English - I infer that it is not
>> > your native language. It is mine. Furthermore, my father taught
>> > English and I was at a good school whil
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 10:01:54 +0100, Oliver Elphick said:
> 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.
So you continue to say. In my experience second an
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 04:53:48AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 11:06:52 +0200, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 03:29:23AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 04:09:47 -0400, Anthony DeRobertis
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 03:29:23AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 04:09:47 -0400, Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> said:
>
> > On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 21:28, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> And what is the difference between a 3:1 majority and a 3:1 super
> >> majority?
Hi,
now I am really confused.
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 03:08:25AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > "Do _NOT_ encrypt your ballot; the voting mechanism shall
> > not be able to decrypt your message."
>
> > is to warn people that the mechanism cannot cope with encrypted
> > messag
On Tue, 2003-10-14 at 09:08, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Manoj, you say you were taught English - I infer that it is not your
> > native language. It is mine. Furthermore, my father taught English
> > and I was at a good school while grammar was still being taught.
>
> I find that has litt
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 04:09:47 -0400, Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 21:28, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> And what is the difference between a 3:1 majority and a 3:1 super
>> majority? If there is no difference, why can't the terms be used
>> interchangeably?
>
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 01:37:59PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I believe the juxtaposition is more than mere happenstance, but that
> nevertheless the two documents are easily separable, are almost
> invariably discussed as separate units within the project, and that they
> serve distinct func
On 2003-10-14 10:01:54 +0100 Oliver Elphick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The destruction of good English
teaching began with the move to comprehensive schooling beginning in
1967.
Sir,
I find the assertion of a link between comprehensive schooling in
England and poor English language instruction wh
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 07:42:32 +0100, Oliver Elphick said:
> On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 23:02, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 22:44:28 +0100, Oliver Elphick
>> said:
>> > Nevertheless, that use of "shall" is so strange that I had to
>> > read the sentence twice to understand it. It i
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 11:06:52 +0200, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 03:29:23AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 04:09:47 -0400, Anthony DeRobertis
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>> > On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 21:28, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> >> A
On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 21:28, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> And what is the difference between a 3:1 majority and a 3:1
> super majority? If there is no difference, why can't the terms be
> used interchangeably?
Using two different technical terms makes it seem like there is a
distinction. Als
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 10:01:54 +0100, Oliver Elphick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, 2003-10-14 at 09:08, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> > Manoj, you say you were taught English - I infer that it is not
>> > your native language. It is mine. Furthermore, my father taught
>> > English and I was at
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 10:01:54 +0100, Oliver Elphick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> 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.
So you continue to say. In my e
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 03:29:23AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 04:09:47 -0400, Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 21:28, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> And what is the difference between a 3:1 majority and a 3:1 super
> >> majority? If
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
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.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Hi,
now I am really confused.
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 03:08:25AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > "Do _NOT_ encrypt your ballot; the voting mechanism shall
> > not be able to decrypt your message."
>
> > is to warn people that the mechanism cannot cope with encrypted
> > messag
On Tue, 2003-10-14 at 09:08, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Manoj, you say you were taught English - I infer that it is not your
> > native language. It is mine. Furthermore, my father taught English
> > and I was at a good school while grammar was still being taught.
>
> I find that has litt
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 04:09:47 -0400, Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 21:28, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> And what is the difference between a 3:1 majority and a 3:1 super
>> majority? If there is no difference, why can't the terms be used
>> interchangeably?
> U
On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 23:02, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 22:44:28 +0100, Oliver Elphick 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 to differ.
Ma
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 07:42:32 +0100, Oliver Elphick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 23:02, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 22:44:28 +0100, Oliver Elphick
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> > Nevertheless, that use of "shall" is so strange that I had to
>> > read the
On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 21:28, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> And what is the difference between a 3:1 majority and a 3:1
> super majority? If there is no difference, why can't the terms be
> used interchangeably?
Using two different technical terms makes it seem like there is a
distinction. Als
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
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.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 23:02, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 22:44:28 +0100, Oliver Elphick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
Hi folks,
Here is the current incarnation.
manoj
##
Votes must be received by Tue, Oct 28 23:59:59 UTC 2003.
The following ballot is for voting on a General Resolution to amend the
Debian Constitution to d
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 22:39:24 -0400, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Will implies a wish as well. You think Devotee can have wishes, but
>> not intents? You should probably learn about the concept of
>> anthropomorphism.
> "The rock will fall at 9.8 m/s/s."
> You
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Will implies a wish as well. You think Devotee can have
> wishes, but not intents? You should probably learn about the concept
> of anthropomorphism.
"The rock will fall at 9.8 m/s/s."
You'd claim the rock is willing itself to fall?
> In any case, this is
Hi folks,
Here is the current incarnation.
manoj
##
Votes must be received by Tue, Oct 28 23:59:59 UTC 2003.
The following ballot is for voting on a General Resolution to amend the
Debian Constitution to d
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 22:39:24 -0400, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Will implies a wish as well. You think Devotee can have wishes, but
>> not intents? You should probably learn about the concept of
>> anthropomorphism.
> "The rock will fall at 9.8 m/s/s."
> You
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 20:08:27 -0400, Aaron M Ucko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I have a couple of typographical nits: Manoj Srivastava
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> [ ] Choice 1: Proposal A [3:1 super majority needed]
> [...]
>> these proposals require a 3:1 super-majority in order to pass (as
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Will implies a wish as well. You think Devotee can have
> wishes, but not intents? You should probably learn about the concept
> of anthropomorphism.
"The rock will fall at 9.8 m/s/s."
You'd claim the rock is willing itself to fall?
> In any case, this is
I have a couple of typographical nits:
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> equally (as long as all choices X you make fall in the range 1<= X <= 4).
Please space the inequality evenly (which may require moving it to the
next line). Alternatively, you could substitute [1, 4].
> [ ]
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 20:08:27 -0400, Aaron M Ucko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I have a couple of typographical nits: Manoj Srivastava
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> [ ] Choice 1: Proposal A [3:1 super majority needed]
> [...]
>> these proposals require a 3:1 super-majority in order to pass (as
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 22:44:28 +0100, Oliver Elphick said:
> On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 20:15, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>
>> >> your ballot; the voting mechanism shall not be able to decrypt
>> >> your message.
>> > I'm no native speaker of english, but that "shall" seems strange
>> > to me. Maybe a "
Hi,
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 16:43:04 -0400 (EDT), Joe Nahmias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Yet another update for the ballot.
>> conducted in accordance with the policy delinated in Section A,
>> Standard
> s/delinated/delineated/
Fixed now.
manoj
--
And
I have a couple of typographical nits:
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> equally (as long as all choices X you make fall in the range 1<= X <= 4).
Please space the inequality evenly (which may require moving it to the
next line). Alternatively, you could substitute [1, 4].
> [ ]
On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 20:15, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> >> your ballot; the voting mechanism shall not be able to decrypt your
> >> message.
> > I'm no native speaker of english, but that "shall" seems strange to
> > me. Maybe a "will" would be more appropriate?
>
> No. I was taught Engli
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>Yet another update for the ballot.
> conducted in accordance with the policy delinated in Section A, Standard
s/delinated/delineated/
Other than that, looks good.
Joe
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 01:37:59PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 11:09:12AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > There are definitely two camps about this. One camp, whose
> > views I subscribe to, believes that the juxtaposition is mere
> > happenstance; and that whe
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 22:44:28 +0100, Oliver Elphick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 20:15, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>
>> >> your ballot; the voting mechanism shall not be able to decrypt
>> >> your message.
>> > I'm no native speaker of english, but that "shall" seems strange
>>
Hi,
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 16:43:04 -0400 (EDT), Joe Nahmias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Yet another update for the ballot.
>> conducted in accordance with the policy delinated in Section A,
>> Standard
> s/delinated/delineated/
Fixed now.
manoj
--
And
Hi,
Yet another update for the ballot. I've corrected run on
sentences, removed a "me" from the rationale, added clarifications in
the rationale that the proposal intends the DFSG and the SC to be
considered distinct works.
manoj
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 13:18:36 -0400 (EDT), Joe Nahmias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Do not erase anything between the lines below and do not change the
>> choice names.
> Out of curiousity, do you deal with this situation, and if so how?
The ballot is rejected as corrupt.
>> signed) wit
On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 20:15, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> >> your ballot; the voting mechanism shall not be able to decrypt your
> >> message.
> > I'm no native speaker of english, but that "shall" seems strange to
> > me. Maybe a "will" would be more appropriate?
>
> No. I was taught Engli
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 18:25:12 +0100, Jochen Voss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Hi,
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 11:04:16AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Discussion" choice is unranked, then it is equal to all other
>> unranked choices, if any -- no special consideration is given to
>> the "Further
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>Yet another update for the ballot.
> conducted in accordance with the policy delinated in Section A, Standard
s/delinated/delineated/
Other than that, looks good.
Joe
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Conta
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 01:37:59PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 11:09:12AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > There are definitely two camps about this. One camp, whose
> > views I subscribe to, believes that the juxtaposition is mere
> > happenstance; and that whe
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 16:13:05 + (UTC), Dylan Thurston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> On 2003-10-13, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 04:03:15AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>> __
>>>
>>> Propo
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 06:27:16PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 04:03:15AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > ==
> > It occurs to me that there are some people who may wish to afford the
> > Debian Socia
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 11:09:12AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> There are definitely two camps about this. One camp, whose
> views I subscribe to, believes that the juxtaposition is mere
> happenstance; and that when the social contract talks about us
> including a definition of what i
Hi,
Yet another update for the ballot. I've corrected run on
sentences, removed a "me" from the rationale, added clarifications in
the rationale that the proposal intends the DFSG and the SC to be
considered distinct works.
manoj
Hi,
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 11:04:16AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Discussion" choice is unranked, then it is equal to all other unranked
> choices, if any -- no special consideration is given to the "Further
> Discussion" choice by the voting software).
If the software implements the quota a
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 13:18:36 -0400 (EDT), Joe Nahmias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Do not erase anything between the lines below and do not change the
>> choice names.
> Out of curiousity, do you deal with this situation, and if so how?
The ballot is rejected as corrupt.
>> signed) wit
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 11:09:12AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 12:59:13 +0200, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 04:03:15AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> __
> >>
>
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 18:25:12 +0100, Jochen Voss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Hi,
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 11:04:16AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Discussion" choice is unranked, then it is equal to all other
>> unranked choices, if any -- no special consideration is given to
>> the "Further
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Here is the new version.
>
> This vote is being conducted in accordance with the Debian
> Constitution, Section A, Standard Resolution Procedure, to vote on a
> General Resolution to amend the constitution to disambiguate section
> 4.1.5.
Don't know how I missed th
1 - 100 of 128 matches
Mail list logo
