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 stat
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marek Habersack) writes:
> ** On Jun 13, John Goerzen scribbled:
>
> [snip]
> > > facts I outlined are true, then the GR doesn't make sense at all! ANd
> > > that's
> >
> > Why? Why does it not make sense to remove the non-free software from
> > the Debian Project?
> Because
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 reaffi
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
> General
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 Meet
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 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
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
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marek Habersack) writes:
> ** On Jun 13, John Goerzen scribbled:
>
> [snip]
> > > facts I outlined are true, then the GR doesn't make sense at all! ANd that's
> >
> > Why? Why does it not make sense to remove the non-free software from
> > the Debian Project?
> Because many
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 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:
> > Plea
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 11:41:27 -0500, Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> said:
Chris> On Jun 13, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>> AFAIK the helix people are free to upload their debs if they want
>> to maintain them according to our policies..
Chris> FWIW they seem to have done a good job
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, 13 Jun 2000 11:41:27 -0500, Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Chris> On Jun 13, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>> AFAIK the helix people are free to upload their debs if they want
>> to maintain them according to our policies..
Chris> FWIW they seem to have done a good job of pa
On Sun, Jun 11, 2000 at 04:05:30PM -0600, Norman Petry wrote:
> On Sat, June 10, 2000 10:00 PM, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> >
> >On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 09:53:40PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> >> Now follows a dissertation on the voting system:
> >[...]
> >
> >Thanks for the primer; this was qui
> 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 p
On Sun, Jun 11, 2000 at 04:05:30PM -0600, Norman Petry wrote:
> On Sat, June 10, 2000 10:00 PM, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> >
> >On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 09:53:40PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> >> Now follows a dissertation on the voting system:
> >[...]
> >
> >Thanks for the primer; this was qu
> 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 Rob
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 Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 12:24:17AM -0400, Buddha Buck wrote:
> > 1. John Goetzen recently made a proposed General Resolution, to which
> > Anthony Townes suggested an amendment. Both the original proposal and
> > the amendment have had various developers post seconds to them. The
> > we
>
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 12:24:17AM -0400, Buddha Buck wrote:
> > 1. John Goetzen recently made a proposed General Resolution, to which
> > Anthony Townes suggested an amendment. Both the original proposal and
> > the amendment have had various developers post seconds to them. The
> > w
26 matches
Mail list logo
