On Thursday 09 February 2006 20:26, Raul Miller wrote:
> On 2/9/06, Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But why does the Secretary get to decide whether this barrier should be
> > set or not?
>
> The constitution says:
>
> "... the final de
roposal.
>
> How can he say "because this does not change the DFSG, it requires a
> majority" without making a judgment that it does not change the DFSG?
A simple majority is the default, and so allowing the default margin is
hardly a bold judgment. It's a refusal to make an extraordinary judgment,
namely, that a supermajority is required.
Christopher Martin
pgpUsq9IJZfuN.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Thursday 09 February 2006 21:27, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > To impose the 3:1 requirement requires, beforehand, a judgment
> > concerning the DFSG. Since no one has found a Secretarial basis for
> > that power, it
On Thursday 09 February 2006 20:18, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Thursday 09 February 2006 18:28, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> >> Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> > But what you ar
doing these things.
>
> And we're following those procedures.
>
> So where's the problem?
The problem is that in the course of this procedure, the Secretary
overstepped his authority, as I've explained above. You may not agree with
that view, but I don't see why you should be so confused about my
complaint.
Christopher Martin
pgpfcjJGjfqhb.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Thursday 09 February 2006 18:28, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > But what you are saying is that the developers don't have that
> > right.
>
> Quite wrong. I'm saying they *do* have this right, and it is a ri
an
software must meet. They may also include position statements about issues
of the day." The GFDL sounds like an "issue of the day" to me.
Christopher Martin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thursday 09 February 2006 16:41, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > What I do see are a handful of single-minded individuals (only a small
> > subset of those who wish to have the GFDL removed, I stress) who seem
> >
On Thursday 09 February 2006 15:25, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > If the developers are (as a whole) too untrustworthy to be able to vote
> > on such matters without 3:1 training wheels attached by their elders,
> >
On Thursday 09 February 2006 15:26, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I'm getting sick and tired of hearing this over and over again. The
> > last two votes were not about the GFDL.
>
> Why did we take the second vot
_legitimate_ fashion. And I take
umbrage at your insinuations.
If an issue is highly controversial, then I can think of no better way of
settling it in a way that most developers will accept than a vote. People
respect votes much more than decrees, even if they don't agree with them.
Christopher Martin
pgpd94iDbUiVN.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Thursday 19 January 2006 20:39, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jan 2006, Christopher Martin wrote:
> > No, because as I wrote the whole point of the amendment is to make
> > officially acceptable the interpretation of the license which views
> > the license as flawed
On Thursday 19 January 2006 18:54, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le jeudi 19 janvier 2006 à 18:05 -0500, Christopher Martin a écrit :
> > Rather, it simply promulgates the interpretation that the GFDL, minus
> > invariant sections, while not perfect, is still DFSG-free.
>
>
atter, but cannot impose
that view on the general shape of the vote.
If the Secretary views the amendment as insufficiently clear as to what it
is attempting to establish, then he or she can always request
clarification.
Cheers,
Christopher Martin
pgph1yVPpXsNM.pgp
Description: PGP signature
I can't test it myself, but was thinking of running XFS in future.
Thanks,
Christopher Martin
pgpenipfzRHE0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
/dev/bus/usb/ device permissions would
> be:
>
> SUBSYSTEM=="usb_device", SYSFS{idProduct}=="0039",
> SYSFS{idVendor}=="045e", GROUP="plugdev"
>
> (660 is the default.)
That information will be very helpful when /dev/bus/usb arrives, for a
number of developers I'm sure - thanks.
Cheers,
Christopher Martin
pgpHEvMnoRoSP.pgp
Description: PGP signature
> This problem also breaks coldplugging for cameras operated through
> > libgphoto, possibly scanners and libsane (#334068), and likely other
>
> I had no time to investigate this bug yet, but it's supposed to work
> fine.
I hope it does turn out to work.
Cheers,
Christopher Martin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
should disappear at that point, though it will require that
packages alter their udev rules yet again, and assume that udev is being
run in conjunction with a 2.6.14+ kernel.
Cheers,
Christopher Martin
pgpnmNZK2JTiW.pgp
Description: PGP signature
e quite unlikely (I grant that
nothing is certain) to need frequent or substantive changes. But if people
are up to the job, and would like to volunteer to extend the Debian menu
system and/or menu-xdg, then I wish them luck.
Cheers,
Christopher Martin
* It has a very nice icon, thanks, this is just a random example.
pgpZHZn1XvUm9.pgp
Description: PGP signature
nagers
whose maintainers were apparently not aware of the increasingly common
practice of providing freedesktop.org display manager (i.e. gdm/kdm)
support, perhaps due to having fewer users, which probably meant that no
one had bothered to ask yet.
> * Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20 matches
Mail list logo
