Does 5 refer only to firmware that is not currently identified as being
non-free? If that is the case, is 5 a viable choice? If it doesn't resolve the
problem completely and allow us to release then it needs to be accompanied by a
plan for the other problem firm/software.
- "Manoj Srivastav
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> To cast a vote, it is necessary to send this ballot, with the text form
> (which is embedded later in this ballot) filled out, to a dedicated
> e-mail address, in a signed message, as described below.
Suggest restructuring to simplify:-
To cast a vote, complete the text
Hi,
Here is the *DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT* ballot for the GR. Please note
the dates on the ballot; voting is not open yet.
Please send comments to the debian-vote@lists.debian.org list.
manoj
General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations;
FIRST CALL FOR VOTES
On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 07:45:05PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 09:18:03AM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> >
> > Feel free to propose an amendment. I might accept it.
>
> I propose the following ammendment:
> [...]
Since there was no further reply on this proposed ammen
On Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 09:18:03AM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> > > I would ask that the proposer withdraw this resolution (which in effect
> > > is a
> > > non-binding position statement, contradicting the text of the DFSG as many
> > > of us understand it) and draft a resolution in its place
On Tue, 02 Dec 2008, Robert Millan wrote:
> > In light of the Secretary's claims that the above GR would give him the
> > power to amend the text of the DFSG even though it says nothing of the sort,
I am sure if he actually did that we could override him. I hope that
would not be necessary howev
On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 05:11:23PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 09:45:56AM -0600, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
> > ,[ Proposal 6: Exclude source requirements from firmware (defined) ]
> > | Firmware is data such as microcode or lookup tables that is loaded into
> >
* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [081201 01:15]:
> On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 09:45:56AM -0600, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
> > ,[ Proposal 4: Allow release managers leeway to include non-dfsg bits
> > as needed ]
> > | Debian's priorities are our users and free software. We don't trade
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 09:45:56AM -0600, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
> ,[ Proposal 6: Exclude source requirements from firmware (defined) ]
> | Firmware is data such as microcode or lookup tables that is loaded into
> | hardware components in order to make the component function properly.
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 09:45:56AM -0600, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
> ,[ Proposal 5: allow Lenny to release with firmware blobs ]
> | 1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
> | community (Social Contract #4);
> |
> | 2. We acknowledge that there is a lo
On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 11:45:57AM +1100, Anibal Monsalve Salazar wrote:
> s/the release team are/the release team is/
Sorry, that was wrong.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 04:20:38PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
>On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 09:45:56AM -0600, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
>>,[ Proposal 4: Allow release managers leeway to include non-dfsg bits as
>>needed ]
>>| Debian's priorities are our users and free software. We don't tr
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 09:45:56AM -0600, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
> ,[ Proposal 4: Allow release managers leeway to include non-dfsg bits as
> needed ]
> | Debian's priorities are our users and free software. We don't trade
> | them against each other. However during getting an relea
- "Steve Langasek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This says that the *license* must comply with the DFSG. It specifically
> does *not* say that the *firmware* complies with the DFSG, allowing us to
> ship firmware in main for which source code was unavailable if it otherwise
> complied with the
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> […] we will […] deliver firmware in udebs as long as it is
> necessary for installation (like all udebs), and firmware included
> in the kernel itself as part of Debian Etch, as long as we are
> legally allowed to do so, and the firmware is dist
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 04:28:27PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> The second time, we said the firmware must comply with the
> DFSG. That meant, in practice, that the formware was considered to be
> in compliance with the GPL, and thus the preferred form of
> modification -- and no one
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Nov 23 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> My understanding is that that's exactly what they did, and that's what
>> my post was trying to say. That would make FD mean N-N-R-N-N, yes?
> No. That would mean that FD *decided* it. That is not
On Sun, Nov 23 2008, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 03:13:38PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 23 2008, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
>> > On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 02:21:47PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> >> The constitution does not give release teams the power
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 03:13:38PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 23 2008, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 02:21:47PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> The constitution does not give release teams the powers to
> >> override the foundation documents, so
On Sun, Nov 23 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 07:43:05PM +, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>> On Sun, Nov 23 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>>
>> I think the primary question that started this line of proposals
>> was how to resolve the presence of allegedly sourcele
On Sun, Nov 23 2008, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 02:21:47PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> The constitution does not give release teams the powers to
>> override the foundation documents, so the release team can not ignore
>> SC violations.
>
>> I can make
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 07:43:05PM +, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 23 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>
> >> On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 06:29:26PM +, gregor herrmann wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 09:45:56 -0600, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
>
> >>> Since some people have
On Sun, Nov 23 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> The release team is free to interpret the SC and decide there is
>> no violation there (as long as they have a rationale, defensible
>> position, etc). That would not violate the constitution.
>
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 02:21:47PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> The constitution does not give release teams the powers to
> override the foundation documents, so the release team can not ignore
> SC violations.
> I can make a formal interpretation of the constitution, if yo
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The release team is free to interpret the SC and decide there is
> no violation there (as long as they have a rationale, defensible
> position, etc). That would not violate the constitution.
My understanding is that that's exactly what they
On Sun, Nov 23 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
> gregor herrmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> In order to make it easier for me and maybe others I'm trying to compact
>> them into a single table below (the FD column is from Russ' followup
>> mail to -vote).
>>
>> v Consequence / Proposal >
gregor herrmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In order to make it easier for me and maybe others I'm trying to compact
> them into a single table below (the FD column is from Russ' followup
> mail to -vote).
>
> v Consequence / Proposal > | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | FD
> --
On Sun, Nov 23 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 06:29:26PM +, gregor herrmann wrote:
>>> On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 09:45:56 -0600, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
>>> Since some people have had trouble reading the proposals, I am
>>> including a short impact of the p
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 06:29:26PM +, gregor herrmann wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 09:45:56 -0600, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
>
> > Since some people have had trouble reading the proposals, I am
> > including a short impact of the proposal list below the proposal.
>
> Thanks fo
On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 09:45:56 -0600, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
> Since some people have had trouble reading the proposals, I am
> including a short impact of the proposal list below the proposal.
Thanks for listing the consequences of the different choices.
In order to make it eas
- "Steve Langasek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It appears what you don't understand is what the DFSG actually says, since
> you're playing word substitution games with the text. Maybe /you've/
> promised not to distribute any works without source code in Debian. The
> Debian project has don
Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Fortunately, in the case of programmatic works and DFSG §2, the Debian
> project has *already* voted on the interperatation and decided
> http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_004> that the requirement
> for source code applies to all programmatic works in D
[apologies for the poorly edited previous post, it was sent
accidentally.]
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It appears what you don't understand is what the DFSG actually says,
> since you're playing word substitution games with the text.
An accusation that could easily be made from
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It appears what you don't understand is what the DFSG actually says,
> since you're playing word substitution games with the text.
An accusation that could easily be made from many contradictory
positions. The DFSG is not unambiguous in its wording, wh
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 03:50:07PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 09:00:02AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> > > Whether loaded by the kernel or present on the chip, we have
> > > promised that works without source code will not be dist
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 09:00:02AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> > Whether loaded by the kernel or present on the chip, we have
> > promised that works without source code will not be distributed in
> > Debian.
>
> "We"?
That's what I wrote, yes. I, like
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 09:00:02AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> Johannes Wiedersich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Ben Finney wrote:
> > > The Debian system we provide is usable. There may be devices which
> > > are not yet operable with Debian,
> > Which wireless card is supported by debian witho
Le Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 06:36:12AM +0200, Lars Wirzenius a écrit :
> ke, 2008-11-19 kello 07:58 +0900, Charles Plessy kirjoitti:
> > Manoj,
> >
> > I completerly agree.
> >
> > How about allowing the Project to release Lenny without changing the DFSG?
>
> That is what Manoj proposed on 2008-11-
ke, 2008-11-19 kello 07:58 +0900, Charles Plessy kirjoitti:
> Manoj,
>
> I completerly agree.
>
> How about allowing the Project to release Lenny without changing the DFSG?
That is what Manoj proposed on 2008-11-10 in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2008/11/msg00060.html
--
To UNSUBSCRI
Le Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 12:12:18PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
>
> The DFSG has lasted us oer a decade. In another decade, I think
> the distinction of "central" and "periphery" and "Cell" processors is
> likely to erode; and our DFSG definition should be forward looking.
Hi Manoj
Johannes Wiedersich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ben Finney wrote:
> > The Debian system we provide is usable. There may be devices which
> > are not yet operable with Debian,
>
> Which wireless card is supported by debian without any sourceless
> firmware, either loaded by the kernel or present
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 12:12:18PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 18 2008, Luk Claes wrote:
>
>
> > Note that firmware is no program AFAICS...
>
> I do not think I agree. I think it is indeed a software program,
> and I am not alone:
> ,[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C
On Tue, Nov 18 2008, Luk Claes wrote:
> Note that firmware is no program AFAICS...
I do not think I agree. I think it is indeed a software program,
and I am not alone:
,[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_software ]
| Firmware which is software programmed(sic) resident to elec
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 18 2008, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
>
>> Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 08:08:36AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
Though I agree that the release team cannot put any foundation document
aside, I don't think the
On Tue, Nov 18 2008, Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 18 2008, Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
>>
>>> Ben Finney wrote:
The Debian system we provide is usable. There may be devices which are
not yet operable with Debian,
>>> Which wireless card is supporte
On Tue, Nov 18 2008, Martin Wuertele wrote:
> * Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-11-18 14:47]:
>
>> On Tue, Nov 18 2008, Martin Wuertele wrote:
>>
>> > * Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-11-17 19:31]:
>> >
>> >> (Quote attribution elided on purpose.)
>> >> > Stop your FUD.
>> >>
* Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-11-18 14:47]:
> On Tue, Nov 18 2008, Martin Wuertele wrote:
>
> > * Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-11-17 19:31]:
> >
> >> (Quote attribution elided on purpose.)
> >> > Stop your FUD.
> >> >
> >> > The Release Team isn't violating the Social
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 18 2008, Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
>
>> Ben Finney wrote:
>>> The Debian system we provide is usable. There may be devices which are
>>> not yet operable with Debian,
>> Which wireless card is supported by debia
On Tue, Nov 18 2008, Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
> Ben Finney wrote:
>> The Debian system we provide is usable. There may be devices which are
>> not yet operable with Debian,
>
> Which wireless card is supported by debian without any sourceless
> firmware, either loaded by the kernel or present o
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ben Finney wrote:
> The Debian system we provide is usable. There may be devices which are
> not yet operable with Debian,
Which wireless card is supported by debian without any sourceless
firmware, either loaded by the kernel or present on the chip?
On Tue, Nov 18 2008, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 08:08:36AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
>>> Though I agree that the release team cannot put any foundation document
>>> aside, I don't think the release team is overriding the s
On Tue, Nov 18 2008, Martin Wuertele wrote:
> * Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-11-17 19:31]:
>
>> (Quote attribution elided on purpose.)
>> > Stop your FUD.
>> >
>> > The Release Team isn't violating the Social Contract.
>>
>> It is my opinion that releasing lenny with known DFSG viola
Martin Wuertele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-11-17 19:31]:
> > It is my opinion that releasing lenny with known DFSG violations
> > is a violation of the Social Contract, on the part of the project
> > as a whole, regardless of which individuals are maki
* Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-11-17 19:31]:
> (Quote attribution elided on purpose.)
> > Stop your FUD.
> >
> > The Release Team isn't violating the Social Contract.
>
> It is my opinion that releasing lenny with known DFSG violations is a
> violation of the Social Contract, on the
Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 08:08:36AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
>> Though I agree that the release team cannot put any foundation document
>> aside, I don't think the release team is overriding the social contract,
>> but chooses a certain interpretation (
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> The proposers and sponsors of option 5 didn't propose this as an amendment
>> to the current GR. Why should they have to *withdraw* the proposal in order
>> to get it considered separately at a later time?
>
> They only need to do so to prevent it from being on
(Quote attribution elided on purpose.)
> Stop your FUD.
>
> The Release Team isn't violating the Social Contract.
It is my opinion that releasing lenny with known DFSG violations is a
violation of the Social Contract, on the part of the project as a whole,
regardless of which individuals are maki
* Robert Millan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [081117 16:26]:
> On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 06:02:00PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > >
> > > What they are not empowered to do is to decide to release with
> > > DFSG violations in main.
> >
> > Sorry? The release team is empowered to release, and
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 06:02:00PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> >
> > What they are not empowered to do is to decide to release with
> > DFSG violations in main.
>
> Sorry? The release team is empowered to release, and that includes
> releasing with some known RC bugs. That’s what t
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 08:08:36AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> >
> > I believe that one of the arguments used is that by doing so, the RT
> > would be overriding a foundation document, and developers cannot do so
> > without $higher_power.
>
> Though I agree that the release team cannot put any
Le dimanche 16 novembre 2008 à 22:31 +0100, Pierre Habouzit a écrit :
> The SC speaks about software, and doesn't define it.
Please. Not that *again*.
--
.''`.
: :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code.
`. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctivene
* Neil McGovern ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [081117 00:27]:
> On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 01:17:08PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Given that no GR has been passed to specifically override the release team
> > decision, I think it's fairly clear that a vote of further discussion
> > would leave the decision w
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 01:27:26AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Quite right! We need some editorial changes to fix this(!)
> Except we already tried that, with the social contract, not long
> before madcoder joined. Surely no-one joining in 2005 could be
> ignorant of what SC 1 applies to, given all t
On Sun, Nov 16 2008, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 11:42:19AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> I do not think throwing options out because they are not of a
>> narrow and limited scope is right. The proposer and sponsors can
>> withdraw them, if they think the scope is
On Sun, Nov 16 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 09:01:38PM +, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 16 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>>
>> > On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 06:04:32PM +, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> >> First of all, please stop the obnoxious cross-posting. It
On Sun, Nov 16 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Le dimanche 16 novembre 2008 à 12:43 -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit :
>
It’s not that your interpretation of the Social Contract is flawed;
but it is only your interpretation. The secretary is not a s
Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> [SC 1] doesn't require the so called source of the work to exist
> within Debian explicitly. It asks for any component in Debian to meet
> the DFSG.
>
> In turn however, the DFSG requires that in their §2. The DFSG use a mix
> of "component", "soft
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 11:42:19AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I do not think throwing options out because they are not of a
> narrow and limited scope is right. The proposer and sponsors can
> withdraw them, if they think the scope is too broad for the problem at
> hand. No one els
Neil McGovern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 01:17:08PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Given that no GR has been passed to specifically override the release
>> team decision, I think it's fairly clear that a vote of further
>> discussion would leave the decision with the prev
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 01:17:08PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Given that no GR has been passed to specifically override the release team
> decision, I think it's fairly clear that a vote of further discussion
> would leave the decision with the previous decision-making body, in this
> case the re
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 11:15:10PM +, Ben Finney wrote:
> Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 10:20:05PM +, Ben Finney wrote:
> > > Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > The SC speaks about software, and doesn't define it.
> > >
> > > Th
Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 10:20:05PM +, Ben Finney wrote:
> > Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > The SC speaks about software, and doesn't define it.
> >
> > The statement that Manoj refers to, [SC §1], does *not* speak
> > about soft
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 10:20:05PM +, Ben Finney wrote:
> Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 09:01:38PM +, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > > The SC is pretty clear about everything in the Debian
> > > system (which includes image .debs) should be
Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This gives no argument for why such bitstreams should be held to
> different standards of freedom for its recipients. The properties
> “not code that is run on the host CPU” is mentioned, but seems to
> be irrelevant to the argument.
>
> Can you re-write t
Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 09:01:38PM +, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > The SC is pretty clear about everything in the Debian
> > system (which includes image .debs) should be 100% free. Not just
> > things in the Debian system that run on a ho
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 09:01:38PM +, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 16 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 06:04:32PM +, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> >> First of all, please stop the obnoxious cross-posting. It makes the
> >> threads unreadable anyway.
> >>
> >
Le dimanche 16 novembre 2008 à 15:01 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
> The SC is pretty clear about everything in the Debian system
> (which includes image .debs) should be 100% free. Not just things in
> the Debian system that run on a host CPU (what is that, anyway) are
> free.
I
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Le dimanche 16 novembre 2008 à 12:43 -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit :
>>> It’s not that your interpretation of the Social Contract is flawed;
>>> but it is only your interpretation. The secretary is not a superhuman
>>> – unless he is leading a double li
On Sun, Nov 16 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 06:04:32PM +, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> First of all, please stop the obnoxious cross-posting. It makes the
>> threads unreadable anyway.
>>
>> (If you could stop the condescending and pedantic tone, that would help
>> as
Moritz Muehlenhoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 2008-11-16, Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The secretary isn't a delegate. The secretary has special powers
>> explicitly listed in the Constitution that are not available to the DPL
>> or to a delegate and a selection process mandat
Le dimanche 16 novembre 2008 à 12:43 -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit :
> > It’s not that your interpretation of the Social Contract is flawed; but
> > it is only your interpretation. The secretary is not a superhuman –
> > unless he is leading a double life chasing evil aliens at night, but
> > that wo
On 2008-11-16, Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Le dimanche 16 novembre 2008 à 11:34 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
>
>>> So, really, we cannot release programs (firmware) in main
>>> without source code just because a few delegat
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Le dimanche 16 novembre 2008 à 11:34 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
>> So, really, we cannot release programs (firmware) in main
>> without source code just because a few delegates think we should.
>
> So another delegate (the secretary) s
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 06:04:32PM +, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> First of all, please stop the obnoxious cross-posting. It makes the
> threads unreadable anyway.
>
> (If you could stop the condescending and pedantic tone, that would help
> as well, but I guess that would be asking too much of y
First of all, please stop the obnoxious cross-posting. It makes the
threads unreadable anyway.
(If you could stop the condescending and pedantic tone, that would help
as well, but I guess that would be asking too much of you.)
Le dimanche 16 novembre 2008 à 11:34 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
On Sun, Nov 16 2008, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Sunday 16 November 2008, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> I think we can be reasonably sure that the current spate of
>> discussions is about releasing Lenny. For this action, any of the
>> ballot options will have a distinct decision; and the ballot
Le dimanche 16 novembre 2008 à 11:24 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
> The social contract says that the debian system and all its
> components will be 100% free, free as determined by the dfsg.
All its components include the unstable suite as well. Why are you
focusing on the release
On Sun, Nov 16 2008, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le samedi 15 novembre 2008 à 19:39 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
>> > Hm, no, the impression that I got from this discussion that at least
>> > several people here think the result of "Further discussion" is:
>> >
>> > i Do we require source f
On Sun, Nov 16 2008, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le dimanche 16 novembre 2008 à 10:04 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
>> >>ii Do we allow the Release Team to ignore SC violation bugs: Yes
>> >
>> > Rationale: with "further discussion" nothing changes. Today RMs are
>> > empowered, by delegati
On Sunday 16 November 2008, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I think we can be reasonably sure that the current spate of
> discussions is about releasing Lenny. For this action, any of the
> ballot options will have a distinct decision; and the ballot should
> have _all_ the possible courses of
Le dimanche 16 novembre 2008 à 10:04 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
> >>ii Do we allow the Release Team to ignore SC violation bugs: Yes
> >
> > Rationale: with "further discussion" nothing changes. Today RMs are
> > empowered, by delegation, to decide upon transitions and
> > "lenny-ignore
Le samedi 15 novembre 2008 à 19:39 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
> > Hm, no, the impression that I got from this discussion that at least
> > several people here think the result of "Further discussion" is:
> >
> > i Do we require source for firmware in main: Yes
> >ii D
On Sun, Nov 16 2008, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> * Manoj Srivastava [Sat, 15 Nov 2008 17:38:56 -0600]:
>
>> That does not seem to make sense. Either you have
>> 'none of this non-free crap in the archive ever'
>> or you have
>> 'the release team downgrades these bugs and includes non-
On Sun, Nov 16 2008, Stephen Gran wrote:
> Or the vote that I suspect would be a reasonably common one if the vote
> allowed it:
> "I don't want firmware in main, but I want the Release Team to have the
> freedom to allow it for Lenny".
As far as the lenny release is concerned, how is t
On Sun, Nov 16 2008, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 04:24:18PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Hm, no, the impression that I got from this discussion that at least
>> several people here think the result of "Further discussion" is:
>
> Let me observe that the fact that "several
Hi,
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 09:12:25PM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Nov 2008, Peter Palfrader wrote:
>
> > I so didn't want to get into this discussion, but here goes anyway.
> >
> > I'm considering formally proposing this GR (option):
>
> I'm hereby proposing the following genera
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 12:13:25PM +, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 08:54:17AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> >
> > Let me observe that the fact that "several people here think" is not
> > authoritative.
> >
> > That said, I disagree with point (ii) of your interpretation
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 08:54:17AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>
> Let me observe that the fact that "several people here think" is not
> authoritative.
>
> That said, I disagree with point (ii) of your interpretation:
>
> > i Do we require source for firmware in main: Y
This one time, at band camp, Adeodato Simó said:
> * Manoj Srivastava [Sat, 15 Nov 2008 17:38:56 -0600]:
>
> > That does not seem to make sense. Either you have
> > 'none of this non-free crap in the archive ever'
> > or you have
> > 'the release team downgrades these bugs and in
* Manoj Srivastava [Sat, 15 Nov 2008 17:38:56 -0600]:
> That does not seem to make sense. Either you have
> 'none of this non-free crap in the archive ever'
> or you have
> 'the release team downgrades these bugs and includes non-free crap'
> Not both.
> Which i
1 - 100 of 141 matches
Mail list logo
