Yodel!
With the first (?) CfV out now about non-free kernel firmwares:
I'm not going to vote, sorry. I don't have the time to wade through tons of
mailing list archives, of which 1/3 is repetitions of previously made
statements, 1/3 is presumably flames or close to it, and 1/3 is trivial
corr
On Monday 02 October 2006 21:36, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> About the "my vote is on sale" bit: I sell my vote against such a
> summary. Meaning: If I am satisfied by the summary I will vote how I
> think best. Otherwise, I don't intend to vote. I might be biased towards
> what kernel/installer/re
Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> I'm not going to vote, sorry. I don't have the time to wade through tons of
> mailing list archives, of which 1/3 is repetitions of previously made
> statements, 1/3 is presumably flames or close to it, and 1/3 is trivial
> corrections, with the few substantial argum
On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 09:36:09PM +0200, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> Yodel!
>
> With the first (?) CfV out now about non-free kernel firmwares:
The current GR to vote is nothing but the status quo, so further discussion
will not change anything one way or the other.
That said, the kernel team me
I wrote:
> I am very tempted to vote Further Discussion (with the hope that it will
> actually result in *no* further discussion), as a protest of the mess
> that has been made out of this issue, on all ballots related to firmware.
Just to make things clear, I am in no way blaming the secretary f
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006, Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
> Regarding the specific ballot on 2006/004, can anyone tell me how
> passing it would change ANYTHING of import, other than annoying one
> of the RMs [1]? Points B and D are "recommends" and "requests" so
> aside from Debian taking a public stand on the
Don Armstrong wrote:
> I had always understood DFSG §2 to be read in exactly the way the
> proposal clarifies its meaning. However, the original proposal made
> it clear to me that this was not a universal understanding, and it
> fell to me (or someone else) to draft language to offer another
>
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 22:03:11 +0200, Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Monday 02 October 2006 21:36, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
>> About the "my vote is on sale" bit: I sell my vote against such a
>> summary. Meaning: If I am satisfied by the summary I will vote how
>> I think best. Otherwise
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 13:38:44 -0700, Kevin B McCarty
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> As I understand what's going on, instead of having a single vote
> with all the firmware-related options laid out on the ballot, we are
> apparently going to have a series of votes about related topics (GR
> 2006/004
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006, Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
>(vote "further discussion" because I'm grumpy about the endless
> arguments
Voting NOTA because of endless arguments seems counter productive...
but I recognize some people are frustrated with the number of options
that have come out of this particular
On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 10:48:10PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> That said, the kernel team meeting on saturday evening resulted in what will
> probably be a new proposal, and at the same time a nice summary of the
> changes. Stay tuned for more infos.
Sven, nobody besides you on the kernel team s
On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 07:53:27PM -0700, Jurij Smakov wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 10:48:10PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> > That said, the kernel team meeting on saturday evening resulted in what will
> > probably be a new proposal, and at the same time a nice summary of the
> > changes. S
Sven Luther wrote:
> Jurij, i still think your draft is lightyears more clear and to the point than
> most GRs out there.
One comment. As BLOB stands for Binary Large OBject, binary blob
is somewhat "strange".
Regards,
Joey
--
Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessaril
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 08:48:19AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> It would serve as summary, if nothing else. But we also had a discussion with
> the DPL, who suggested a new GR which could be signed by the kernel team, the
> d-i team and the RMs (signed = seconded here).
While we were discussing tha
On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 04:15:10PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> The "Editorial amendments to SC" GR was not a null operation; it quite
> clearly changed the social contract to make the DFSG apply to all
> works distributed in main. This was rather laboriously discussed on
> -vote at the time, with
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 06:06:24PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 08:48:19AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > It would serve as summary, if nothing else. But we also had a discussion
> > with
> > the DPL, who suggested a new GR which could be signed by the kernel team,
> > the
Kevin B. McCarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> As I understand what's going on, instead of having a single vote with
> all the firmware-related options laid out on the ballot, we are
> apparently going to have a series of votes about related topics (GR
> 2006/004 being the first) with only the
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The "Editorial amendments to SC" GR was not a null operation; it quite
> clearly changed the social contract to make the DFSG apply to all
> works distributed in main.
Adjective holy misplacement, Batman! Rather, it changed the social
contract to make the DFSG
On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 10:45:57 +0200, Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 04:15:10PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
>> The "Editorial amendments to SC" GR was not a null operation; it
>> quite clearly changed the social contract to make the DFSG apply to
>> all works distribu
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In that particular GR, the full text of the resolution was
> included in every ballot and CFV. If you were mislead, that means you
> did not even bother to read the mail you used to vote with -- sounds
> like the person doing the misleading
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 19:10:55 +0200, Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In that particular GR, the full text of the resolution was included
>> in every ballot and CFV. If you were mislead, that means you did
>> not even bother to read the mail y
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But, if you think calling him lazy is unfair, but him implying
> I deceived him is fair, I amnot sure I can continue this
> conversation,
I do not think he implied that *you* (the secretary) deceived him. He
wrote that he "believed in the
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006, Marc Haber wrote:
> For the "editorial changes" GR, I didn't have the time to follow the
> entire flamewar and voted in belief that the changes were indeed
> editorial because I believed in the text in the CfV.
As much as I hate to be caustic,[1] if DDs don't have time to exer
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 10:02:19PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> Maybe that's more in your ear that in people's (my, Marc's) mouth?
Nicely said. I didn't mean to attack Manoj.
Greetings
Marc
--
-
Marc Haber | "I
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 09:08:30AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> > Jurij, i still think your draft is lightyears more clear and to the point
> > than
> > most GRs out there.
> One comment. As BLOB stands for Binary Large OBject, binary blob
> is somewhat "strange".
This is
On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 09:36:09PM +0200, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> Yodel!
>
> With the first (?) CfV out now about non-free kernel firmwares:
>
> I'm not going to vote, sorry. I don't have the time to wade through tons of
> mailing list archives, of which 1/3 is repetitions of previously made
Le mardi 03 octobre 2006 à 22:15 +0200, Sven Luther a écrit :
> 2) The proposal made by Josselin, which basically proposes that we don't
> require the source code for firmwares 'as long as there are no other
> technical means to install and run the Debian system on these devices',
> which i
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 12:18:04AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mardi 03 octobre 2006 à 22:15 +0200, Sven Luther a écrit :
> > 2) The proposal made by Josselin, which basically proposes that we don't
> > require the source code for firmwares 'as long as there are no other
> > technical
On Tuesday 03 October 2006 22:15, Sven Luther wrote:
> I hope this clarifies things for you and others.
Hah!
Thanks to you, Frans and the others who have tried to actually respond to my
question, but seeing the thread grow into yet another thread discussing the
issues at hand (and with a flamew
29 matches
Mail list logo
