Hey debian-user-portuguese@lists.debian.org

[Noah]

G.E.N.E.R.I.C.S at the best discount

High bills of meds costing you to much? From our wharehouse to your home.
With 8 of the top meds, we have the right one for you.


httP://fdddt.12wmeds.com/Gp/DefAUlt.asp?id=rm





if not interested:
HtTP://gyyej.impactcare4.com/er/Er.aSp?FoLDER=Gp



belvedere drury caddis compendia douglas
proceed leighton velasquez found vendor
beer fischer chesapeake checkout darling

puppyish cautious armata spectrum riemannian
halstead executor rubric cyclopean suppressor
discussant edgy chlorine brittany convent

Re: Proposal: Keep non-free

[Bdale Garbee]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

aj@azure.humbug.org.au (Anthony Towns) writes:

> I propose that the Debian project resolve that:
>
> ==
> Acknowledging that some of our users continue to require the use of
> programs that don't conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines, we
> reaffirm our commitment to providing the contrib and non-free areas in
> our archive for packaged versions of such software, and to providing the
> use of our infrastructure (such as our bug-tracking system and mailing
> lists) to help with the maintenance of non-free software packages.
> ==

Seconded.

Bdale
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 

iD8DBQFAN9vIZKfAp/LPAagRAo/JAKCDmHWOXoAnC8bu/wwbpZd8hw4aRQCfZw0t
P175T3fjxzBj4zBNpUXfoDc=
=VKYX
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

GR status

[Andrew Suffield]

I now have two active GR proposals that have received sufficient
seconds:



Removal of non-free

This proposal was first introduced in its current form in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200312/msg00044.html
and was restated with an explanation of its implications in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01138.html
(the second link is preferred for all purposes).

This proposal has acquired the following seconds:

Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01139.html
Kyle McMartin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01169.html
Clint Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01137.html
Tore Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01170.html
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01604.html

Anthony Towns has an alternate to this proposal which I believe has
acquired sufficient seconds and should go on the same ballot.



Editorial amendments to the social contract

This proposal was formally introduced in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01526.html
An expanded version explaining all the changes can be found at
http://people.debian.org/~asuffield/social_contract_reform.3

A typographical correction was made in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01601.html
(this falls under A.1.6 rather than A.1.1). This is the current
version of the proposal.

This proposal has acquired the following seconds:

Chad C. Walstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01605.html
Remi Vanicat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01536.html
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01602.html
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200402/msg00044.html
Jochen Voss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200402/msg00050.html



I believe that both of these GRs can begin the SRP immediately. They
were designed to be mutually independent so they can run in parallel.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'  |
   `- -><-  |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Proposal: Keep non-free

[Scott James Remnant]

On Sat, 2004-02-21 at 15:48, Anthony Towns wrote:

> I propose that the Debian project resolve that:
> 
> ==
> Acknowledging that some of our users continue to require the use of
> programs that don't conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines, we
> reaffirm our commitment to providing the contrib and non-free areas in
> our archive for packaged versions of such software, and to providing the
> use of our infrastructure (such as our bug-tracking system and mailing
> lists) to help with the maintenance of non-free software packages.
> ==
> 
Seconded.

Scott
-- 
Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange things happen?  Are you going round the twist?



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Proposal: Keep non-free

[MJ Ray]

On 2004-02-21 20:09:57 + Stephen Stafford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:


I firmly believe that keeping non-free and contrib until such time as 
ALL of

the needs of our users can be met from main is a good thing.


As you write it, this is an unreasonable demand: who judges it? I 
suggest that there are some who will never accept that alternatives to 
non-free packages meet all the needs of our users until everything is 
in main. If you are willing to let consensus decide, then the converse 
"drop" proposal will stand or fall accordingly and this serves little 
purpose.


However, you "second this proposal" rather than "second this 
amendment"? I am truly confused about what this proposal is. We have 
the OP's beliefs about what is best, but not a clear statement whether 
he actually is proposing afresh or amending the "drop"!


--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.

Re: Proposal: Keep non-free

[MJ Ray]

On 2004-02-21 23:50:37 + Sean 'Shaleh' Perry 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



I second this.


How can you? Is it a proposal or an amendment? Donkey or poultry?

Did you forget your GnuPG signature, or have I broken my email again?

Many of us (myself included) don't like non-free but pragmatism is 
important 
here.  If users have to fight to get their new computer working they 
will go 
somewhere else.  The recent trend of video card and other hardware 
vendors 
indicates that this problem will not be going away.


I think there are many things to positively support to make debian 
easier to install, if you have the time. d-i and XSF are two of them.


--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.

Re: GR status

[Anthony Towns]

On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 07:52:10PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Editorial amendments to the social contract

> I believe that both of these GRs can begin the SRP immediately. They
> were designed to be mutually independent so they can run in parallel.

I know I've been avoiding commenting on the editorial changes in any
detail while it's unclear what we actually want to social contract to
say; I suspect others have done likewise. I'll certainly be advocating
further discussion if the editorial changes issue comes to vote before
the non-free issue's been decided.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

 Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could.
   http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Hey debian-user-portuguese@lists.debian.org

[Noah]

G.E.N.E.R.I.C.S at the best discount

High bills of meds costing you to much? From our wharehouse to your home.
With 8 of the top meds, we have the right one for you.


httP://fdddt.12wmeds.com/Gp/DefAUlt.asp?id=rm





if not interested:
HtTP://gyyej.impactcare4.com/er/Er.aSp?FoLDER=Gp



belvedere drury caddis compendia douglas
proceed leighton velasquez found vendor
beer fischer chesapeake checkout darling

puppyish cautious armata spectrum riemannian
halstead executor rubric cyclopean suppressor
discussant edgy chlorine brittany convent

Re: Proposal: Keep non-free

[Bdale Garbee]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Anthony Towns) writes:

> I propose that the Debian project resolve that:
>
> ==
> Acknowledging that some of our users continue to require the use of
> programs that don't conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines, we
> reaffirm our commitment to providing the contrib and non-free areas in
> our archive for packaged versions of such software, and to providing the
> use of our infrastructure (such as our bug-tracking system and mailing
> lists) to help with the maintenance of non-free software packages.
> ==

Seconded.

Bdale
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 

iD8DBQFAN9vIZKfAp/LPAagRAo/JAKCDmHWOXoAnC8bu/wwbpZd8hw4aRQCfZw0t
P175T3fjxzBj4zBNpUXfoDc=
=VKYX
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

GR status

[Andrew Suffield]

I now have two active GR proposals that have received sufficient
seconds:



Removal of non-free

This proposal was first introduced in its current form in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200312/msg00044.html
and was restated with an explanation of its implications in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01138.html
(the second link is preferred for all purposes).

This proposal has acquired the following seconds:

Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01139.html
Kyle McMartin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01169.html
Clint Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01137.html
Tore Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01170.html
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01604.html

Anthony Towns has an alternate to this proposal which I believe has
acquired sufficient seconds and should go on the same ballot.



Editorial amendments to the social contract

This proposal was formally introduced in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01526.html
An expanded version explaining all the changes can be found at
http://people.debian.org/~asuffield/social_contract_reform.3

A typographical correction was made in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01601.html
(this falls under A.1.6 rather than A.1.1). This is the current
version of the proposal.

This proposal has acquired the following seconds:

Chad C. Walstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01605.html
Remi Vanicat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01536.html
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01602.html
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200402/msg00044.html
Jochen Voss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200402/msg00050.html



I believe that both of these GRs can begin the SRP immediately. They
were designed to be mutually independent so they can run in parallel.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'  |
   `- -><-  |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Proposal: Keep non-free

[Scott James Remnant]

On Sat, 2004-02-21 at 15:48, Anthony Towns wrote:

> I propose that the Debian project resolve that:
> 
> ==
> Acknowledging that some of our users continue to require the use of
> programs that don't conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines, we
> reaffirm our commitment to providing the contrib and non-free areas in
> our archive for packaged versions of such software, and to providing the
> use of our infrastructure (such as our bug-tracking system and mailing
> lists) to help with the maintenance of non-free software packages.
> ==
> 
Seconded.

Scott
-- 
Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange things happen?  Are you going round the twist?



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Proposal: Keep non-free

[MJ Ray]

On 2004-02-21 20:09:57 + Stephen Stafford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

I firmly believe that keeping non-free and contrib until such time as 
ALL of
the needs of our users can be met from main is a good thing.
As you write it, this is an unreasonable demand: who judges it? I 
suggest that there are some who will never accept that alternatives to 
non-free packages meet all the needs of our users until everything is 
in main. If you are willing to let consensus decide, then the converse 
"drop" proposal will stand or fall accordingly and this serves little 
purpose.

However, you "second this proposal" rather than "second this 
amendment"? I am truly confused about what this proposal is. We have 
the OP's beliefs about what is best, but not a clear statement whether 
he actually is proposing afresh or amending the "drop"!

--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposal: Keep non-free

[MJ Ray]

On 2004-02-21 23:50:37 + Sean 'Shaleh' Perry 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I second this.
How can you? Is it a proposal or an amendment? Donkey or poultry?

Did you forget your GnuPG signature, or have I broken my email again?

Many of us (myself included) don't like non-free but pragmatism is 
important 
here.  If users have to fight to get their new computer working they 
will go 
somewhere else.  The recent trend of video card and other hardware 
vendors 
indicates that this problem will not be going away.
I think there are many things to positively support to make debian 
easier to install, if you have the time. d-i and XSF are two of them.

--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GR status

[Anthony Towns]

On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 07:52:10PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Editorial amendments to the social contract

> I believe that both of these GRs can begin the SRP immediately. They
> were designed to be mutually independent so they can run in parallel.

I know I've been avoiding commenting on the editorial changes in any
detail while it's unclear what we actually want to social contract to
say; I suspect others have done likewise. I'll certainly be advocating
further discussion if the editorial changes issue comes to vote before
the non-free issue's been decided.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

 Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could.
   http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature