"Davide G. M. Salvetti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What about the proposer of a vote writing the pros, and---at the end
> of the discussion period---anybody so inclined submitting cons by
> means of a procedure similar to the amendment one (i.e., with a proper
> number of supporters, I mean).
* JG => Jason Gunthorpe
JG> On Tue, 29 Jun 1999, Darren O. Benham wrote:
>> I don't think it should be "any blind ramblings" but a situation where the
>> Secretary is required to write the pro and con summaries won't work,
>> either. Even he has opinions that would taint the choice he didn't
Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'll leave you with a fairly simple question:
> I like the swirl logo, and want it to be widely used.
> I don't like the bottle logo, and don't want it as our official logo.
>
> How should I vote ?
AH! Now I understand where you're coming from.
Isn't this discussion a waste of time?
Shouldn't we be dealing with more important things wrt to debian? (we all
know that the logo is not *the* most important part in a distro, esp. when
debian doesn't pay much attention to marketing as the rest commercial
distros do)
Personally, I never spe
Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On -vote yes, because most of the seconders had already posted
> comments on -devel. All the discussion seems to have been on -devel,
> in fact. (You'll have to check the archives on master if you don't
> believe me, because the stuff on the web page is woefull
* RM => Raul Miller
RM> Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> libmagick4g-lzw
>> openssl
>> gpg-{rsa,idea}
>>
>> All perfectly DFSG free. In non-free because of something the DFSG is
>> completely silent about, software patents. I tried to do something about
>> this, however there was
On Tue, Jun 29, 1999 at 12:02:12PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>
> On Tue, 29 Jun 1999, Darren O. Benham wrote:
>
> > I don't think it should be "any blind ramblings" but a situation where the
> > Secretary is required to write the pro and con summaries won't work,
> > either. Even he has opin
On Tue, 29 Jun 1999, Darren O. Benham wrote:
> I don't think it should be "any blind ramblings" but a situation where the
> Secretary is required to write the pro and con summaries won't work,
> either. Even he has opinions that would taint the choice he didn't like.
Well, I mean you should get
On Tue, Jun 29, 1999 at 11:37:02AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > As secretary, I would love that. The web team will need volunteers to
> > write those posistion statements, however. During the Leader Elections, I
> > tried to get platform statments that could be put up on vote.debian.org and
On Tue, 29 Jun 1999, Darren O. Benham wrote:
> One posibility is to increase the number of sponsors needed to a level where
> the proposer would have to activly try to get sponsors. It's pretty easy
> to get 5 sponsors but (maybe) not 10... so he'd get 5-7 automatic sponsors
> and then would hav
On Wed, Jun 30, 1999 at 02:34:24AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> FWIW, I'm also a little troubled by the plethora of votes. I quite
So have I. Some of these I can see the need, such as the non-free vote
that's coming up. But I thought something like the logo swap could have
been settled through d
On Tue, Jun 29, 1999 at 08:59:38AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I am wondering what value do these suddenly burgeoning votes
> have?
FWIW, I'm also a little troubled by the plethora of votes. I quite
like that Debian generally just lets the people who are interested and
motivated do t
On Tue, Jun 29, 1999 at 08:59:38AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am wondering what value do these suddenly burgeoning votes
> have? I understand that they may give us an understanding about
> public opinion, but what other charter are they run under? They
> certainly do not
On Tue, Jun 29, 1999 at 08:59:38AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I am wondering what value do these suddenly burgeoning votes
> have? I understand that they may give us an understanding about
> public opinion, but what other charter are they run under? They
> certainly do not seem to
Previously Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Most votes (like the non-free issue) have been called with no
> formal proposal, seconds, or a discussion period. I have strong
> feeling against taking any action whatsoever merely on these votes.
Ahum? The non-free issue a) hasn't had a call for vot
Hi,
I am wondering what value do these suddenly burgeoning votes
have? I understand that they may give us an understanding about
public opinion, but what other charter are they run under? They
certainly do not seem to follow the contstitutional general
resolution protocol, and I see no
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> libmagick4g-lzw
> openssl
> gpg-{rsa,idea}
>
> All perfectly DFSG free. In non-free because of something the DFSG is
> completely silent about, software patents. I tried to do something about
> this, however there was very little support.
Then we shoul
Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The only replies to the proposal mail were ``seconded'' type
> responses, with no attempt to show a justification for the view.
On -vote yes, because most of the seconders had already posted
comments on -devel. All the discussion seems to have been on -
On Tue, Jun 29, 1999 at 09:38:48AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> > Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > My complaint comes from the fact that there was absolutely no
> > > discussion about this new vote prior to it being proposed.
> >
> > If that were true, I might sympathize. Since
Adam Heath wrote:
> dpkg-awk 'section:.*non-free.*' -- package|sed -ne 's/\(..*\)/\1/p'
This fails to pick up libforms0.88 and any other package that doesn't
have the Section line. Not everyone uses:
dpkg-gencontrol -isp
Peter
Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I suggest also to purge master of non-free software, if we are
> really serious about free software purity:
SSH
Difficult to replace at present.
Once lsh is a little more mature, then it will be a different story,
but not yet.
Cheers, Phil.
On Mon, Jun 28, 1999 at 06:49:18PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> > I think that if we want to change anything we should split non-free in
> > open-source and non-open-source or something like this ...
>
> Again, you misunderstand. The Open Source Definition is currently identiacal
> to the DFSG. Nothi
> Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > My complaint comes from the fact that there was absolutely no
> > discussion about this new vote prior to it being proposed.
>
> If that were true, I might sympathize. Since it's not true, I have to
> wonder just what you're trying to pull here. (
On Mon, Jun 28, 1999 at 06:53:25PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> [contrib]
> > You can't modify everything it does.
Well, if you consider a program which uses Motif (ignoring lesstif's
existence), you can't modify Motif so you cannot modify everything about
a program -- some p
> The ballot will contain the options:
>
> 1) create nonfree.debian.org domain
I would like to amend this to make it say "non-free.debian.org". That is
consitent with non-us.debian.org and with the current section name,
"non-free".
--
see shy jo
Will Lowe wrote:
> > On Mon, 21 Jun 1999, Wichert Akkerman - Debian project leader wrote:
> >
> > > 1) create nonfree.debian.org domain
> >
> > I thinks that's even not clear enough, because the "debian.org" part
> > makes it somehow official again. Personally, I would prefer
> > "unofficial.debi
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
[contrib]
> You can't modify everything it does.
How so?
--
see shy jo
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> I am not much in favor of such things since there are a certain number of
> non-free software that are open source and that have only litlle problems
> in their license.
A great deal of stuff is in non-free because of a "little licence problem".
In fact, that's the only r
On Sat, Jun 26, 1999 at 03:23:41AM -0600, Richard Stallman wrote:
> The programs in contrib are free, but many programs are put in contrib
> because they are not useful in an all-free system. Many depend on
> non-free packages to be useful.
>
> I think these programs should be kept with the non-f
Yes, please vote for "FURTHER DISCUSSION"! I think we only need one more
vote to reach quorum so that "FURTHER DISCUSSION" doesn't win :>
--
Robert Woodcock - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Yes I do believe there is a violent thing inside of me" -- Everclear
Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My complaint comes from the fact that there was absolutely no
> discussion about this new vote prior to it being proposed.
If that were true, I might sympathize. Since it's not true, I have to
wonder just what you're trying to pull here. (To be kind, I
On Tue, Jun 29, 1999 at 02:35:01AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> Yes, you are. The situation has changed. We now have a logo, we
> voted on that, and I'm certainly not trying to change that fact.
>
> If you want to be pedantic this vote is actually an attempt to reverse
> the previous logo vote,
Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ah, so your suggestion is that we continue discussing and debating the
> idea for a few more YEARS!?! The entire logo issue has been on hold
> since, what, '97? Late '96?
>
> If we had a concensus, we wouldn't need a vote, yes? Or am I missing
> someth
33 matches
Mail list logo
