Dale Scheetz wrote:
> The project secretary has already said that he has seen no proposal,
> properly submitted, that anyone can act upon, according to our
> constitution.
>
> Until a proposal has been properly made to debian-vote, there can be no
> proper action for a developer to take.
Who ever
Hi,
On Wed, Nov 03, 1999 at 11:48:39AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> >
> > From my point of view, it got even worse, and it has not moved just a little
> > bit towards an acceptable proposal for me.
>
> I don't entirely disagree with this actually; I'd rather n-m behaved
> somewhat differently t
On Wed, 3 November 1999 09:42:48 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> In reply to Joey,
>
> On Tue, Nov 02, 1999 at 01:14:11PM +, Alexander Koch wrote:
> > Following (even your) comments on IRC and in mails I
> > permanently got the (unwritten) message it is a too
> > important part of Debian anyway
On Wed, Nov 03, 1999 at 01:46:27AM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> I don't need to swallow this. I tried all I can to bring the nm-discussion
> to a good end. Please compare wicherts original proposal, my input to it,
> and the input of many other people such as Phillip Hands, Adam Harris and
> so
On Wed, Nov 03, 1999 at 09:42:48AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 02, 1999 at 04:22:20PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > Assuming there are issues beside the technical one, something I am not
> > convinced of at all. This has been beaten to death on another list though.
>
> And voila
5 matches
Mail list logo
