Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: What your ballot should look like if you're in favor of
releasing sarge"):
> On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 19:50:58 +1000, Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > I think that you can reasonably expect this to happen again next
> &g
On Sat, Jun 26, 2004 at 09:03:48AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> So, what do we all learn from this for the future? _That's_ the major
> question for me.
I learned that we[1] tend to screw up and concentrate on the wrong things
in mailing list discussions: by the time an important point is reached
* Andrew Pollock ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040625 23:25]:
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 01:30:03PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > Anthony himself told that very plain on -vote, but in a mail in the
> > non-free-removal thread that was killfiled at that time by most people
> > reading -vote.
> Oh come on,
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 01:30:03PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
>
> Anthony himself told that very plain on -vote, but in a mail in the
> non-free-removal thread that was killfiled at that time by most people
> reading -vote.
>
Oh come on, don't tell me I have to follow -vote as well now? That
ef
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 01:30:03PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > I don't recall you complaining at the time about the title or
> > > description.
>
> > Perhaps because nobody ever hinted that the resolution would cause the
> > release manager to change things? Heck, I didn't see any hints that
* Josip Rodin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040625 13:25]:
> On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 05:11:47PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > > > The current vote will determine what the majority of voters think.
> > > > > Hopefully that will be the end of it.
> > > >
> > > > Not likely. The last vote determin
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 05:42:04AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Ah, so suddenly you're not allowed to discuss issues in case you cause
> anybody to change their mind. That really is what Manoj has been
> complaining about.
No.
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a su
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 05:11:47PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > > The current vote will determine what the majority of voters think.
> > > > Hopefully that will be the end of it.
> > >
> > > Not likely. The last vote determined what 3/4 of the voters thought,
> > > and people weren't
On 2004-06-25 06:15:22 +0100 Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 05:42:04AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
That's just so totally American.
Now there's the ad hominem attack you keep referring to.
Actually, it looks just plain offensive from here "it's wrong, and
typic
* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040624 23:10]:
> I have no interest in blaming people for the present state of affairs --
> not AJ, not my co-sponsors of 003 -- only in getting things situated so
> we can get back to our job of releasing the most complete Free OS that
> ever existed (whatever
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's just so totally American.
Aha. The united states' incarnation of Gassners Law.
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel
Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 03:15:22PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 05:42:04AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > That's just so totally American.
>
> Now there's the ad hominem attack you keep referring to.
No, that would be "You are American, therefore your argument is wron
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 05:42:04AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> That's just so totally American.
Now there's the ad hominem attack you keep referring to.
Well done. You not only offended a fair proportion of our developers,
you completely missed your target (me).
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt VK
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 02:35:59PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 07:45:53PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > I find it to be more like fishing for consensus, by trying as many
> > possibilities as possible (hence "buckshot"). It really could have
> > been better refined (i
Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 11:27:07PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > The current vote will determine what the majority of voters think.
> > > Hopefully that will be the end of it.
> >
> > Not likely. The last vote determined what 3/4 of the voters
Ben Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I see. Is that what the Constitution says? If you don't like who
> > won, then just keep proposing GRs, claiming that not enough people
> > voted last time? When you lose a vote, raise as big a stink as
> > possible and have more votes? You really thi
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 03:55:40PM -0500, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard
to say:
> I have no interest in blaming people for the present state of affairs --
> not AJ, not my co-sponsors of 003 -- only in getting things situated so
> we can get back to our job of releasing the most com
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 09:02:28PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 11:27:07PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > The current vote will determine what the majority of voters think.
> > > Hopefully that will be the end of it.
> > Not likely. The last vote determined what 3
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 19:50:58 +1000, Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 12:57:20AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>> Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > That was because the voters were 20% of the developers, as you
>> > well know. I'm also hoping
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 17:31:49 +1000, Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 11:27:07PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>> Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > The current vote will determine what the majority of voters
>> > think. Hopefully that will b
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 11:27:07PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > The current vote will determine what the majority of voters think.
> > Hopefully that will be the end of it.
>
> Not likely. The last vote determined what 3/4 of the voters thought,
> and people weren't willing to let that
On 2004-06-24 08:31:49 +0100 Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That was because the voters were 20% of the developers, [...]
Consequently, supporters of the last GR have been accused of
"gerrymandering" because the vote ended up in "spring break" for some
people.
I would like to note in
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 12:57:20AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > That was because the voters were 20% of the developers, as you well
> > know. I'm also hoping that we've engaged enough of the developers that
> > we might get a representative
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) schrieb:
> Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> That was because the voters were 20% of the developers, as you well
>> know. I'm also hoping that we've engaged enough of the developers that
>> we might get a representative vote this time.
>
> I s
> I see. Is that what the Constitution says? If you don't like who
> won, then just keep proposing GRs, claiming that not enough people
> voted last time? When you lose a vote, raise as big a stink as
> possible and have more votes? You really think this is a good
> procedure?
FWIW, they _are
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That was because the voters were 20% of the developers, as you well
> know. I'm also hoping that we've engaged enough of the developers that
> we might get a representative vote this time.
I see. Is that what the Constitution says? If you don't like
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 11:27:07PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The current vote will determine what the majority of voters think.
> > Hopefully that will be the end of it.
>
> Not likely. The last vote determined what 3/4 of the voters th
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The current vote will determine what the majority of voters think.
> Hopefully that will be the end of it.
Not likely. The last vote determined what 3/4 of the voters thought,
and people weren't willing to let that be the end of it.
Thomas
--
To U
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 02:52:03PM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
> WV> Who's to say what's "valid" and what isn't? When I originally read (and
> WV> agreed with) the SC, there was nobody to tell me that the way I read it
> WV> at the time wasn't considered "valid". There was also nobody who pointed
> W
On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 07:45:53PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> I find it to be more like fishing for consensus, by trying as many
> possibilities as possible (hence "buckshot"). It really could have
> been better refined (if nothing else, the combinations of options
> which are *not* present in
WV> Who's to say what's "valid" and what isn't? When I originally read (and
WV> agreed with) the SC, there was nobody to tell me that the way I read it
WV> at the time wasn't considered "valid". There was also nobody who pointed
WV> me at the subtle inconsistency in the way I interpreted the origin
On 2004-06-23 17:34:11 +0100 Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...] There was also nobody who pointed
me at the subtle inconsistency in the way I interpreted the original
SC.
Sue me, English isn't my native language. [...]
Personally, I apologise for the communications failures. Please h
Op wo 23-06-2004, om 18:16 schreef Clint Adams:
> > as "grandfather resolutions" as described, and, by explicitly removing
> > the Social Contract's requirement to have DFSG-free documentation and
> > firmware for sarge/some-period-of-time/whatever, go back to allowing
> > discretion on the part of
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 12:16:26PM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
> You're implying here that those things were allowed under a valid
> interpretation of the original SC.
Given historical practice, that's not an unreasonable interpretation.
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wit
> as "grandfather resolutions" as described, and, by explicitly removing
> the Social Contract's requirement to have DFSG-free documentation and
> firmware for sarge/some-period-of-time/whatever, go back to allowing
> discretion on the part of those who would ordinarily be responsible for
> release
On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 11:33:29AM -0500, Graham Wilson wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 11:28:06AM -0500, Graham Wilson wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 04:43:29PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > > Can you please refer me to the discussions in question? As far as I can
> > > tell, both Steve and
Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 04:43:29PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
>> >
>> > This rely on the premices that at least some options will allow to release
>> > sarge sooner. Unfortunately discussions on debian-vote involving the
>> > release manager and the ctt
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 01:14:07PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 04:43:29PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 05:35:07PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > This rely on the premices that at least some options will allow to release
> > > sarge sooner. Un
On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 04:43:29PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 05:35:07PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 12:41:04AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > It is precisely because we all agree on the importance of releasing
> > > sarge soon that we have
On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 12:41:04AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Much noise has been made by certain proponents of the earlier GR over
> the fact that there are three very similar options on the ballot. They
> have suggested that this means the sponsors of these ballot options
> don't have their
On 2004-06-22 17:28:06 +0100 Graham Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If you accept this line of reasoning, the amendments that attempt to
revert to the previous wording won't have any affect.
If one views it that way, these changes will have an effect on the
minds of certain developers, but that
On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 11:28:06AM -0500, Graham Wilson wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 04:43:29PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > Can you please refer me to the discussions in question? As far as I can
> > tell, both Steve and I (release assistants) have an entirely different
> > impression, and b
On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 04:43:29PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 05:35:07PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > This rely on the premices that at least some options will allow to release
> > sarge sooner. Unfortunately discussions on debian-vote involving the
> > release manager
Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This rely on the premices that at least some options will allow to release
> sarge sooner. Unfortunately discussions on debian-vote involving the
> release manager and the ctte had made clear to me that none of the
> ballot options will have positive eff
On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 05:35:07PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 12:41:04AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > It is precisely because we all agree on the importance of releasing
> > sarge soon that we have proposed so many paths to reaching this goal.
> > This is an effort t
On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 12:41:04AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> It is precisely because we all agree on the importance of releasing
> sarge soon that we have proposed so many paths to reaching this goal.
> This is an effort to build consensus, not a lack of consensus on our
> part. Debian is a l
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 00:41:04 -0500, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> I have no intention of telling people which option should be their
> preferred option; indeed, I myself question whether September is far
> enough away to let us release before then, because we've lost a lot
> of moment
Much noise has been made by certain proponents of the earlier GR over
the fact that there are three very similar options on the ballot. They
have suggested that this means the sponsors of these ballot options
don't have their act together, and are incapable of agreeing on
anything.
It is precisel
48 matches
Mail list logo
