Hi,
* Debian Project Secretaru ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060918 20:56]:
I have gone through the last couple of months of mail
archives, and came up with the current state of the proposals we have
before us.
As there has not been many new arguments lately, and the outcome of this
GRs is
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:40:08 +0200, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 10:27:12PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hi,
Proponents of various various amendments to the GR should feel free
to send me a couple of paragraphs in HTML markup to
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 16:03:11 -0700, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 05:32:10PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 12:36:17 -0700, Steve Langasek
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
For the record, this is not the full text of
Martin Schulze wrote:
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 18:46:50 -0700, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
But just like the groundwork and foundation of a structure, the
non-actionable content of a resolutions can contain information on
how the actionable content is to be interpreted. As such, it is
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Either it is preambulatory material, or it is part of the
resolution
If it is preambulatory material, then it is part of the resolution.
*There* lies the crux of the disagreement.
(If it is not part of the resolution, it might be *supplementary* material,
or
Raul Miller wrote:
On 9/21/06, Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On which subject, does anyone else think that it would be useful to
leave debian-vote for formal proposals/seconds (possibly moderated), and
another list e.g. debian-vote-discuss (or even just -project) for the
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I don't care about just the proposers opinion, I want to
ensure that what the proposer is telling me is what the people and
the sponsors also agreed to. I suppose we could have a lengthy email
exchange,
Oooh, lengthy. Just email the damn sponsors and ask
Debian Project Secretaru wrote:
Hi,
I have gone through the last couple of months of mail
archives, and came up with the current state of the proposals we have
before us.
Thanks for going through this. I know you had to as secretary, but it
must have sucked.
--
Nathanael
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 18:39:34 +1200, Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I suppose we could have a lengthy email exchange, and assume that the
sponsors are still paying attention to every mail in the deluge that
is -vote;
On which subject, does anyone else think
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I suppose we could have a lengthy email
exchange, and assume that the sponsors are still paying attention to
every mail in the deluge that is -vote;
On which subject, does anyone else think that it would be useful to
leave debian-vote for formal proposals/seconds
On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 10:02:08AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:40:08 +0200, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 10:27:12PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hi,
Proponents of various various amendments to the GR should feel free
to send
On 9/21/06, Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On which subject, does anyone else think that it would be useful to
leave debian-vote for formal proposals/seconds (possibly moderated), and
another list e.g. debian-vote-discuss (or even just -project) for the
flame^Wdiscussions that follow?
On 9/21/06, I wrote:
Personally, I'd say that if the situation is so ambiguous ...
Note that nothing I said here in any way overrides the procedures
the Secretary posted to dda -- I should have read that announcement
before posting.
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't care about just the proposers opinion, I want to
ensure that what the proposer is telling me is what the people and
the sponsors also agreed to. I suppose we could have a lengthy email
exchange, and assume that the sponsors are
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 07:44:20PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
No one has asked that the vote.d.o pages include background
material. I have asked that the text of resolutions not be
misleadingly edited
Miisleadingly edited? Wittingly or unwittingly? Are you
claiming that the
On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 10:15:28PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
I don't think it is too much to ask that the proposers and/or seconders of
General Resolutions create and maintain wiki pages, for example, when their
initiatives demand a lot of background material to appropriately inform and
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 01:28:26 -0700, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 10:15:28PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
I don't think it is too much to ask that the proposers and/or
seconders of General Resolutions create and maintain wiki pages,
for example, when their
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Seems like I'm damned if I do, and damned if I don't.
It seems to me as if what happened was:
You thought the preamble was rationale and not part of the
resolution proper; but the proposer said no, that was an important
part of the resolution
Russ Allbery writes (Re: The Sourceless software in the kernel source GR):
I don't really know how best to help with the underlying problem here.
Part of the problem is that there are still people who think that we
can rely on procedures to protect us absolutely from people. This is
obviously
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 18:39:01 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Seems like I'm damned if I do, and damned if I don't.
It seems to me as if what happened was:
You thought the preamble was rationale and not part of the
resolution
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What is an issue is that a sloppy proposal mail may have
mislead the sponsors to believe that a preamble was an introductory
section, or vice versa. Hard to know unless the proposors and ponsors
are clear about their intent.
Right, so
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 21:56:25 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What is an issue is that a sloppy proposal mail may have mislead
the sponsors to believe that a preamble was an introductory
section, or vice versa. Hard to know unless
On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 10:27:12PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hi,
Proponents of various various amendments to the GR should feel
free to send me a couple of paragraphs in HTML markup to
introduce/explain the resolutions they are proposing. Feel free to
include external links
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 18:46:50 -0700, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
But just like the groundwork and foundation of a structure, the
non-actionable content of a resolutions can contain information on
how the actionable content is to be interpreted. As such, it is part
of the
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006, Martin Schulze wrote:
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 18:46:50 -0700, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
But just like the groundwork and foundation of a structure, the
non-actionable content of a resolutions can contain information on
how the actionable content is to be
Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 18:46:50 -0700, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
But just like the groundwork and foundation of a structure, the
non-actionable content of a resolutions can contain information on
how the actionable content is to be
* Debian Project Secretaru ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060918 20:56]:
From: Frederik Schueler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 23:06:54 +0200
Good signature from EA7ED2A341954920 Frederik Schüler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
,
| 1. We affirm that our Priorities
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:40:08 +0200, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 10:27:12PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hi,
Proponents of various various amendments to the GR should feel free
to send me a couple of paragraphs in HTML markup to
introduce/explain the
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Since it has been decreed that the secretary has no discretion
in putting up properly proposed and seconded text, this request is
now moot.
We do have an issue now with people seconding extraneous text,
including signatures and
On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 09:54:17AM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
Umh, then I need to ask why the resolution is not clear enough
so that it does not need the preamble to know in which way the
author has intended its interpretation? As Manoj pointed out
already, courts look at the resolution
Hi,
I have gone through the last couple of months of mail
archives, and came up with the current state of the proposals we have
before us. As I see it; there are two solid amendments, and an iffy
third one, and a slew of proposals that have not yet gathered enough
seconds to make it
On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 01:42:14PM -0500, Debian Project Secretaru wrote:
,
| THE DEBIAN PROJECT therefore,
| 1. reaffirms its dedication to providing a 100% free system to
|our users according to our Social Contract and the DFSG; and
| 2. encourages authors of
Le lun 18 septembre 2006 20:42, Debian Project Secretaru a écrit :
GR Amendment 3: Special exception to DFSG #2 for firmware
From: Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 11:37:20 +0200
I second that proposal made by josselin mouette again, and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 01:42:14PM -0500, Debian Project Secretaru wrote:
##
##
GR
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 12:36:17 -0700, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
For the record, this is not the full text of the votable resolution
which I proposed; the preceding text was preambulatory text, not
rationale, and was submitted as part of the resolution itself.
Which is it,
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 16:03:11 -0700, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 05:32:10PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 12:36:17 -0700, Steve Langasek
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
For the record, this is not the full text of the votable
resolution
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 16:03:11 -0700, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 05:32:10PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 12:36:17 -0700, Steve Langasek
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
For the record, this is not the full text of the votable
resolution
On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 05:32:10PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 12:36:17 -0700, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
For the record, this is not the full text of the votable resolution
which I proposed; the preceding text was preambulatory text, not
rationale, and
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 18:46:50 -0700, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 16:03:11 -0700, Steve Langasek
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 05:32:10PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Which is it, a preamble to
Hi,
Proponents of various various amendments to the GR should feel
free to send me a couple of paragraphs in HTML markup to
introduce/explain the resolutions they are proposing. Feel free to
include external links to more extensice body of supporting material
in the paragraphs you
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Proponents of various various amendments to the GR should feel free
to send me a couple of paragraphs in HTML markup to
introduce/explain the resolutions they are proposing. Feel free to
include external links to more extensice body of supporting
Hi,
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 21:05:32 -0700, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Proponents of various various amendments to the GR should feel free
to send me a couple of paragraphs in HTML markup to
introduce/explain the resolutions they are
42 matches
Mail list logo
