On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 09:39:36PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> I'm not sure how to proceed on this non-free issue.
> If no one thinks my most recent proposal is worth sponsoring, nor even
> criticising,
Well, I've already said in the past that I think it'd be better to deal
with making the text c
On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 09:39:36PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> I'm not sure how to proceed on this non-free issue.
> If no one thinks my most recent proposal is worth sponsoring, nor even
> criticising,
Well, I've already said in the past that I think it'd be better to deal
with making the text c
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 12:30:58PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Hi,
>
> As I understand it, Branden's proposal was resubmitted by Andrew Suffield
> in December, in this form:
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200312/msg00044.html
>
> Andrew's December "drop non-free" propo
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 11:00:59AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> See Jochen's message. I echo his sentiments.
>
> Right now, I am *completely* confused. I don't remember what issues are
> out there, who proposed them, what the current versions are, what their
> status is, etc. There were several
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 11:14:23AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Maybe some clarification would be good, and once a
> > final version is there, then make a call for a proposal.
>
> I'm a little unclear on what kind of clarification is needed.
See Jochen's message. I echo his sentiments.
Right n
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 11:14:23AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 12:05:51PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > I think the problem is that you got really confusing people by changing
> > every now and then.
>
> I agree.
>
> > Maybe some clarification would be good, and once a
> >
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 12:30:58PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Hi,
>
> As I understand it, Branden's proposal was resubmitted by Andrew Suffield
> in December, in this form:
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200312/msg00044.html
>
> Andrew's December "drop non-free" propo
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 12:05:51PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> I think the problem is that you got really confusing people by changing
> every now and then.
I agree.
> Maybe some clarification would be good, and once a
> final version is there, then make a call for a proposal.
I'm a little uncle
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 11:00:59AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> See Jochen's message. I echo his sentiments.
>
> Right now, I am *completely* confused. I don't remember what issues are
> out there, who proposed them, what the current versions are, what their
> status is, etc. There were several
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 11:14:23AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Maybe some clarification would be good, and once a
> > final version is there, then make a call for a proposal.
>
> I'm a little unclear on what kind of clarification is needed.
See Jochen's message. I echo his sentiments.
Right n
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 11:14:23AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 12:05:51PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > I think the problem is that you got really confusing people by changing
> > every now and then.
>
> I agree.
>
> > Maybe some clarification would be good, and once a
> >
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 12:05:51PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> I think the problem is that you got really confusing people by changing
> every now and then.
I agree.
> Maybe some clarification would be good, and once a
> final version is there, then make a call for a proposal.
I'm a little uncle
On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 10:52:14PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 09:31:36PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > I am confused. Did not several people second earlier versions of your,
> > and others', proposals?
>
> The most any proposal got was 4 seconds. Five would be needed to
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 04:05:11AM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-02-17 at 03:52, Raul Miller wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 09:31:36PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > I am confused. Did not several people second earlier versions of your,
> > > and others', proposals?
> >
On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 10:52:14PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 09:31:36PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > I am confused. Did not several people second earlier versions of your,
> > and others', proposals?
>
> The most any proposal got was 4 seconds. Five would be needed to
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 04:05:11AM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-02-17 at 03:52, Raul Miller wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 09:31:36PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > I am confused. Did not several people second earlier versions of your,
> > > and others', proposals?
> >
> > The most any proposal got was 4 seconds. Five would be needed to
> > introduce an amendment.
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 04:05:11AM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> Really? I count 6 seconds of Andrew Suffield's proposal of Jan 10
> 22:01:
I was talking about my proposals, not Andrew's.
--
On Tue, 2004-02-17 at 03:52, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 09:31:36PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > I am confused. Did not several people second earlier versions of your,
> > and others', proposals?
>
> The most any proposal got was 4 seconds. Five would be needed to
> introduce
On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 09:31:36PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> I am confused. Did not several people second earlier versions of your,
> and others', proposals?
The most any proposal got was 4 seconds. Five would be needed to
introduce an amendment.
Also, while I personally think my post recent
On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 09:39:36PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> I'm not sure how to proceed on this non-free issue.
>
> If no one thinks my most recent proposal is worth sponsoring, nor even
> criticising, I guess I should just drop it?
>
> [And, if no one cares to resurrect an earlier version,
> > The most any proposal got was 4 seconds. Five would be needed to
> > introduce an amendment.
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 04:05:11AM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> Really? I count 6 seconds of Andrew Suffield's proposal of Jan 10
> 22:01:
I was talking about my proposals, not Andrew's.
--
I'm not sure how to proceed on this non-free issue.
If no one thinks my most recent proposal is worth sponsoring, nor even
criticising, I guess I should just drop it?
[And, if no one cares to resurrect an earlier version, ...]
Thanks,
--
Raul
On Tue, 2004-02-17 at 03:52, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 09:31:36PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > I am confused. Did not several people second earlier versions of your,
> > and others', proposals?
>
> The most any proposal got was 4 seconds. Five would be needed to
> introduce
On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 09:31:36PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> I am confused. Did not several people second earlier versions of your,
> and others', proposals?
The most any proposal got was 4 seconds. Five would be needed to
introduce an amendment.
Also, while I personally think my post recent
On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 09:39:36PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> I'm not sure how to proceed on this non-free issue.
>
> If no one thinks my most recent proposal is worth sponsoring, nor even
> criticising, I guess I should just drop it?
>
> [And, if no one cares to resurrect an earlier version,
I'm not sure how to proceed on this non-free issue.
If no one thinks my most recent proposal is worth sponsoring, nor even
criticising, I guess I should just drop it?
[And, if no one cares to resurrect an earlier version, ...]
Thanks,
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
26 matches
Mail list logo
