Re: gpg key question (first applicant)

2000-09-15 Thread Bolan Meek
, > > -- > Guillaume Morin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > La vie est facetieuse > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Bolan Meek Unix Systems Administrator Sarcom/WorldCom [EMAIL PROTECTED] 972-729-5387

Scanned Photos Req'd (was Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current... scheme )

2000-08-03 Thread Bolan Meek
Anand Kumria wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 07:35:40PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote: > > On Wed, 2 Aug 2000, Matthew Vernon wrote: > > > > > Dale Scheetz writes: > > > > > > > ...Scanning a passport seems to be a reasonable skill to > > > > require of incoming members. Isn't it? > > > > > > No.

Photo ID (was Re: [nm-admin] Identification step ...)

2000-08-01 Thread Bolan Meek
Oliver Elphick wrote: > > Anand Kumria wrote: > >I don't know when you asked Dale but the procedures are quite clear that > >"An image file of an appropriate piece of photo-identification" (from > >http://www.debian.org/devel/join/nm-step2> is required. > > Yes! We want (as a group) to see

Priority for Sponsored (was Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

2000-07-26 Thread Bolan Meek
Jérôme Marant wrote: > Why not processing sponsored developers separately ? It's contrary to _my_ interests, since I'm not sponsored yet (and am not yet ready to ask for sponsorship for a new xmailtool upload...), but it certainly seems fair that those who are already actively contributing to De

Foundational Document Protection (was Re: Constit...uti [was Re:CFV...])

2000-07-17 Thread Bolan Meek
Clay Crouch wrote: > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Mon, 17 Jul 2000, Jules Bean wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2000 at 01:49:01AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > >> > >> [Major Snippage] > >> > > > > Perhaps this concept could be generalised to mention 'Foundational >

Re: Please don't remove libc5 - old non-free software might need it!

2000-07-14 Thread Bolan Meek
Stephen Frost wrote: > > On Fri, 14 Jul 2000, David Starner wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 14, 2000 at 10:04:18PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > > >...FUD tactics are nothing new and are common throughout history. > > > > What are FUD tactics? Are secret police a FUD tactic? If so, then > > I doesn't u

Re: Constitutional, Parliamentary Issues (was Re: CFV: Non-freearchive removal)

2000-07-08 Thread Bolan Meek
Craig Sanders wrote: > On Fri, Jul 07, 2000 at 04:09:59PM -0500, Bolan Meek wrote: > > Craig Sanders wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 06, 2000 at 10:03:26PM -0500, Bolan Meek wrote: > > ... > > > > Craig Sanders wrote: > > > > > >

Re: Constitutional, Parliamentary Issues (was Re: CFV: Non-freearchiveremoval)

2000-07-07 Thread Bolan Meek
Craig Sanders wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 06, 2000 at 10:03:26PM -0500, Bolan Meek wrote: ... > > Craig Sanders wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 29, 2000 at 10:32:03PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > > > > The requisite discussion period having bee

Constitutional, Parliamentary Issues (was Re: CFV: Non-free archiveremoval)

2000-07-06 Thread Bolan Meek
This reply is going to -project, since, not yet being a Debian Developer, I oughtn't post to -vote. John Goerzen wrote: > > Matthew Vernon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > I really don't know, but as it's not mine and as I do not support it, > > > I don't think I should be calling for vote

Re: A Compromise Proposal on GR: Remove non-free

2000-06-12 Thread Bolan Meek
Stephen Frost wrote: > > On 10 Jun 2000, John Goerzen wrote: > > > Bolan Meek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > I suggest that the non-free packages be replaced by installer > > > assistants, > > > > I would support such a solution

A Compromise Proposal on GR: Remove non-free

2000-06-09 Thread Bolan Meek
Greetings: God bless you. Noting the tension between proponents of purifying in Debian's support for Free Software by removing non-free from what is now unstable (woody), and proponents of supporting the users of non-free software by continuing to host non-free -with good arguments on both sides

Bungles on my part (was Re: Thank you for responding)

2000-06-09 Thread Bolan Meek
I'm sorry for any inconvenience I've caused you. Raul Miller wrote: > > > > Are you suggesting that this post of mine was not about a development > > > issue? > > On Fri, Jun 09, 2000 at 10:50:59AM -0500, Bolan Meek wrote: > > Not merely suggesting,

Topic Request

2000-06-09 Thread Bolan Meek
way as a facilitator. To any I already made this kind of request, my apologies for missing your name in the above list. Quoting a previous message, primarily for the snip from http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/subscribe : (edited only for formatting) Bolan Meek wrote: > > Buddha Buck wr

Thank you for responding

2000-06-09 Thread Bolan Meek
, since there are so many who would rather hit >reply< and blast away than to include an a well-reasoned rebuttal an editing of the To: || Cc: field of devel^H^H^H^H^Hproject. brian moore wrote: > On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 05:05:42PM -0500, Bolan Meek wrote: > > brian moore wrote: >

Re: A User's View on Non-Free

2000-06-07 Thread Bolan Meek
Buddha Buck wrote: > > > -Original Message- > > From: David N. Welton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ... > > > > There is actually a list for these kinds of meta-project discussions: > > debian-project. It was lame for the origianl poster not to post > > there, in my opinion. > > I disagr