On Wed, Jul 19, 2000 at 02:43:11AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2000 at 12:23:27AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > Given the continued lack of a reply, I shall assume that
> > there is indeed no need for the GR.
>
> Actually, it appears you have reached your conclusion a prio
On Tue, Jun 27, 2000 at 12:23:27AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> Given the continued lack of a reply, I shall assume that
> there is indeed no need for the GR.
Actually, it appears you have reached your conclusion a priori the premise
you cited, so let's not play games.
--
G. Branden Robinson
On Thu, Jun 22, 2000 at 06:10:01PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 01:36:51PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 10:39:11PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > sources.list. Nobody has yet shown me why merely being on
> > > debian.org means that it has to
On Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 01:36:51PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 10:39:11PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > sources.list. Nobody has yet shown me why merely being on
> > debian.org means that it has to be associated with the Debian
> > distribution.
>
> Given this very po
On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 10:32:57PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> My proposal does not throw out the social contract. It strengthens
> it.
no, it does not strengthen it. it throws out the bits of it that you
personally don't like.
> I fail to see how you can call supporting and spreading non-free
On Sat, 17 Jun 2000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 09:36:46AM +, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > On Sat, 17 Jun 2000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > > "We will be guided by the needs of our users." Our users
> > > have indicated that non-free is currently required.
> > > And that means
On 15-Jun-00, 22:39 (CDT), John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > Will you please stop equating "I want to provide the best experience
> > for our users" with "I support non-free software at the same level
> > of enthusiasm I support free so
On Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 11:07:46PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> As I said above, "We will be guided by the needs of our users,"
> and our users have indicated that they still need non-free.
> So we need to keep maintaining it.
I thought we were over this little misunderstanding, at least nobody
On Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 09:36:46AM +, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jun 2000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > "We will be guided by the needs of our users." Our users
> > have indicated that non-free is currently required.
> > And that means us developing it, not us passing it off.
> > Which par
On Sat, 17 Jun 2000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 10:33:17PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > 4. Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software
> > >We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free-software
> >
On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 10:33:17PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > 4. Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software
> >We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free-software
> >community. We will place their interests firs
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) wrote:
> So if you're certain not to agree, then don't keep posting the same
> thing over and over again. Not everyone is thick headed and unwilling
> to hear or consider other positions. If there are people for whom
> absolutely no argument or evidence
On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 09:23:23PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> If not, then I ask how much sense it makes for Debian Developers 20
> years from now to be bound by a document which says we make available
> an FTP archive of non-free software. What do we do when FTP goes the
> way of UUCP?
i
On 16 Jun 2000, John Goerzen wrote:
> Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 10:33:17PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > My proposal does not throw out the social contract. It strengthens
> > > it. I fail to see how you can call supporting and spreading non-fre
On Fri, Jun 16, 2000 at 03:43:06PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > And, lastly, Debian providing all this makes non-free software easier to
> > maintain and easier to obtain, and, IMO, making life easier is a moral
> > good too.
> apt can pull from anywhere.
And dinstall? The BTS? The mirror netwo
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 01:34:20PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 06:31:50PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > > Obviously you have no problem with throwing out the social contract on a
> > > whim.
> >
> > Please explain to where the proposed GR mandates this.
> >
>
On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 01:34:20PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 06:31:50PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > Obviously you have no problem with throwing out the social contract on a
> > whim.
>
> Please explain to where the proposed GR mandates this.
>
> I see an amend
On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 10:39:11PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> sources.list. Nobody has yet shown me why merely being on
> debian.org means that it has to be associated with the Debian
> distribution.
Given this very point, why the GR?
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMA
Brian Mays <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sorry, John. You're going to talk yourself blue in the face long before
> you are going to convince some people on this list of your position.
> You're welcome to keep on trying, however.
So if you're certain not to agree, then don't keep posting the sam
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Goerzen) wrote:
> For the sake of the argument, I'll accept in this case your premise
> that non-free software helps users get their work done. Even if I
> assume that, let us ask this: why does this non-free software have to
> be distributed by Debian?
Well, it doesn't,
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 10:33:17PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > My proposal does not throw out the social contract. It strengthens
> > it. I fail to see how you can call supporting and spreading non-free
> > software "good, valuable principles." Th
: "John Goerzen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Steve Greenland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2000 10:39 PM
Subject: Re: An ammendment (Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish
Non-Free)
&g
On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 10:44:21PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> Dirk Eddelbuettel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> You did not say it, but the guidelines you were advocating using for
> determing which software is included lead to that conclusion. If you
Where did I say that? Please stop p
On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 10:33:17PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> My proposal does not throw out the social contract. It strengthens
> it. I fail to see how you can call supporting and spreading non-free
> software "good, valuable principles." There is no logical or ethical
> basis for such a sta
Dirk Eddelbuettel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 01:27:40AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > By your argument, again, we ought to just allow everything in. This
>
> You won't win an argument by inventing arguments you wish your opponent had
> said. Obviously, I did not say
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 13-Jun-00, 01:30 (CDT), John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 03:30:04PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > > What do we need this in a GR for?
> > >
> > > To reaff
On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 10:14:54PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> My post was made solely to point out the illogic of Hamish Moffatt's
> equivalence between "throwing out the Social Contract on a whim", which was
> what he accused John Goerzen of attempting to do, and the text of John's
> Genera
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > To reaffirm the principles you are working to erode.
> >
> > Your principles are the support and spreading of non-free software?
>
> Not at all. I refer to the principles stated in the Debian
> Social Contract:
>
> 5. Programs That Don't Mee
On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 09:38:25PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 04:26:18PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > Please explain what part of the constitution allows for a GR to
> > > amend the social contract.
>
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 09:23:43PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 04:26:18PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Please explain what part of the constitution allows for a GR to
> > amend the social contract.
On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 09:23:43PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> How is this a rebuttal? It's not even on point. If the constitution
>
On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 04:26:18PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 06:31:50PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > > Obviously you have no problem with throwing out the social contract on a
> > > whim.
>
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 01:34:20PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Ple
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 06:31:50PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > Obviously you have no problem with throwing out the social contract on a
> > whim.
On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 01:34:20PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Please explain to where the proposed GR mandates this.
Please explain what
On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 06:31:50PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> Obviously you have no problem with throwing out the social contract on a
> whim.
Please explain to where the proposed GR mandates this.
I see an amendement of its language, but no blanket repeal of the document.
--
G. Branden Ro
On 13-Jun-00, 01:30 (CDT), John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 03:30:04PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > What do we need this in a GR for?
> >
> > To reaffirm the principles you are working to erode.
>
> Your prin
On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 01:27:40AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> By your argument, again, we ought to just allow everything in. This
You won't win an argument by inventing arguments you wish your opponent had
said. Obviously, I did not say that, and neither did I mean to say it. That
should be o
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 12:53:44PM -0600, Bruce Sass wrote:
> > If you really want to show that non-free and contrib are not part of the
> > distribution you should move them out from under "dists".
> > ftp...debian.org/
> > debian/ #
On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 01:30:30AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 03:30:04PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > What do we need this in a GR for?
> >
> > To reaffirm the principles you are working to erode.
>
> Your principles
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 03:30:04PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > What do we need this in a GR for?
>
> To reaffirm the principles you are working to erode.
Your principles are the support and spreading of non-free software?
Just what is wrong with e
By your argument, again, we ought to just allow everything in. This
is clearly not what Debian is about. We are about Free Software here,
folks. Allowing non-free does not increase net utility; it decreases
it. The greatest increase in net utility will come by promoting Free
Software rather th
On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 12:53:44PM -0600, Bruce Sass wrote:
> If you really want to show that non-free and contrib are not part of the
> distribution you should move them out from under "dists".
> ftp...debian.org/
> debian/ # has infrastructure support
> dists/
On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 09:10:47PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 05:22:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > The intention of this ammendment is to provide a means for developers to
> > offer their support of the existing social contract while acknowledging
> > that the c
On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 05:22:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> The intention of this ammendment is to provide a means for developers to
> offer their support of the existing social contract while acknowledging
> that the current situation does indeed give somewhat too much credibility.
I'm afra
I second this amendment.
Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 11:03:33PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > DEBIAN GENERAL RESOLUTION
> > Proposed by: John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I wish to propose an ammendment to the proposed resolution as follows.
>
> The text of the resolution
On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, C. Cooke wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Jun 2000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > to dists/woody/
> > main
> > add-on/
<...>
>
> dists/woody/
> debian
> non-debian/
If you really want to show that non-free and contrib are not part of the
distribution you s
On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 11:07:57PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Jun 2000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > to dists/woody/
> > add-on/
> > gnome-helix
> > kde
> > wouldn't alter that, while it would collect the existing add-on
> > collecti
On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 11:45:32PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> On Jun 11, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > As I understand it, at this point two votes need to take place: one to
> > determine what form the resolution should take so that developers may
> > choose between John's original resolution, or t
On Sun, 11 Jun 2000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> todists/woody/
> main
> add-on/
> contrib
> non-free
> experimental
> orphaned
> ipv6
>
On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 03:30:04PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > 1) the Debian project continues to acknowledge the utility of providing
> > non-free software for it users.
> What do we need a GR for this? What makes you think that there is
> ut
On Jun 11, Anthony Towns wrote:
> As I understand it, at this point two votes need to take place: one to
> determine what form the resolution should take so that developers may
> choose between John's original resolution, or the one I posted (or any
> others that are proposed and seconded), and a
On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 10:44:24PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 05:22:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 11:03:33PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > DEBIAN GENERAL RESOLUTION
> > > Proposed by: John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > I wish to pro
On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 10:00:43PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> On Jun 10, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > It's easier to bog down John's proposal in parliamentary bureaucracy if you
> > couch your diametrically opposed proposal as an amendement.
>
> Translation: it is easier to defeat John's propo
On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 03:30:04PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> What do we need this in a GR for?
To reaffirm the principles you are working to erode.
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PGP signature
I second this.
Hamish
On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 05:22:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 11:03:33PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > DEBIAN GENERAL RESOLUTION
> > Proposed by: John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I wish to propose an ammendment to the proposed resolution as
On Jun 10, Branden Robinson wrote:
> It's easier to bog down John's proposal in parliamentary bureaucracy if you
> couch your diametrically opposed proposal as an amendement.
Translation: it is easier to defeat John's proposal if a clearly
defined alternative is proposed to be voted upon at the s
On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 05:22:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 11:03:33PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > DEBIAN GENERAL RESOLUTION
> > Proposed by: John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I wish to propose an ammendment to the proposed resolution as follows.
>
> The text o
(Reformatted for clarity; debian-vote trimmed)
John> What do we need a GR for this? What makes you think that there is
John> utility in us actually providing it?
Dirk> What makes *you* think there isn't? Nice "holier than you" attitude.
John> Before you flame, perhaps we could get a
I also second this amendment, as it is now clear that it is indeed an
amendment..
This message is gpg signed..
Zephaniah E. Hull..
On Sun, Jun 11, 2000 at 02:05:15AM +0200, Carsten Leonhardt wrote:
> Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I wish to propose an ammendment to the propose
On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 05:22:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> I wish to propose an ammendment to the proposed resolution as follows.
Seconded.
> The text of the resolution should be replaced with a call for the
> developers to resolve that:
>
> --
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I wish to propose an ammendment to the proposed resolution as follows.
>
> The text of the resolution should be replaced with a call for the
> developers to resolve that:
>
> -
Dirk Eddelbuettel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > 1) the Debian project continues to acknowledge the utility of providing
> > > non-free software for it users.
> >
> > What do we need a GR for this? What makes you think that there is
> > utility in us actually providing it?
>
> What m
Anthony Towns wrote:
> I imagine this ammendment would be best as a separate option on the
> ballot to the original proposal, and as such it will require five seconds.
Seconded, if it just would count :)
(another plea to the new-maintainer team - no, just kidding, I will wait
until all of you th
Anthony Towns wrote:
>
>--ZRyEpB+iJ+qUx0kp
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
>On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 11:03:33PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
>> DEBIAN GENERAL RESOLUTION
>> Proposed by: John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> > 1) the Debian project continues to acknowledge the utility of providing
> > non-free software for it users.
>
> What do we need a GR for this? What makes you think that there is
> utility in us actually providing it?
What makes *you* think there isn't? Nice "holier than you" attitu
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I wish to propose an ammendment to the proposed resolution as follows.
This is not really an amendment.
> 1) the Debian project continues to acknowledge the utility of providing
> non-free software for it users.
What do we need a GR for this?
[Let's retry this with the promised PGP sig...]
On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 05:22:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > DEBIAN GENERAL RESOLUTION
> > Proposed by: John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I wish to propose an ammendment to the proposed resolution as follows.
Your amendment looks like a c
On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 05:22:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > DEBIAN GENERAL RESOLUTION
> > Proposed by: John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I wish to propose an ammendment to the proposed resolution as follows.
Your amendment looks like a completely different proposal to me.
> The text
On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 11:03:33PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> DEBIAN GENERAL RESOLUTION
> Proposed by: John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I wish to propose an ammendment to the proposed resolution as follows.
The text of the resolution should be replaced with a call for the
developers to resolve
67 matches
Mail list logo
