On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 02:27:26AM +0200, Jordi Mallach wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 11:08:04AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > Then use a different criteria for measuring accomplishment. Spend a day
> > configuring a Red Hat system, and you'll know that technically we
> > have achieved a lot.
On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 02:27:26AM +0200, Jordi Mallach wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 11:08:04AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > Then use a different criteria for measuring accomplishment. Spend a day
> > configuring a Red Hat system, and you'll know that technically we
> > have achieved a lot
On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 11:08:04AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> Then use a different criteria for measuring accomplishment. Spend a day
> configuring a Red Hat system, and you'll know that technically we
> have achieved a lot. Don't undervalue that.
But that's not the only thing to measure.
--
On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 05:21:04PM -0500, Joseph Carter wrote:
> YMM(and probably does)V. However if more than 80% of people feel that
> Debian would be lost without non-free software six years after Debian
> began, I've got to wonder if we have accomplished anything at all. I
Then use a differe
On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 05:34:55PM -0500, Joseph Carter wrote:
> But then of course, some people on this list just don't think little
> things like following the guidelines we've set for ourselves is important.
And some people like to bleat and moan, and ignore the simple point
in the current cons
On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 06:14:53PM -0400, Robert D. Hilliard wrote:
> On 19 July, Manoj proposed a constitutional amendment requiring
> a super-majority vote to change the SC or DFSG. This proposal is at:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-project-0007/msg00061.html
>
> On the same date
On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 11:08:04AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> Then use a different criteria for measuring accomplishment. Spend a day
> configuring a Red Hat system, and you'll know that technically we
> have achieved a lot. Don't undervalue that.
But that's not the only thing to measure.
--
On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 01:39:34AM +1100, Peter Eckersley wrote:
> > No. There's nothing wrong if someone feels dissapointed if "no" wins by 80%.
> > It would mean that a brutal majority of the Debian developers care little
> > about the politics of the Project. I would not find that result very
>
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't think so.. It seems like the only real solution is to set this
> issue aside and fix the constitution first. This too would be precedent
> setting, but IMO it would be a better precedent than effectively modifying
> the constitution in practice
On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 05:21:04PM -0500, Joseph Carter wrote:
> YMM(and probably does)V. However if more than 80% of people feel that
> Debian would be lost without non-free software six years after Debian
> began, I've got to wonder if we have accomplished anything at all. I
Then use a differ
On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 05:34:55PM -0500, Joseph Carter wrote:
> But then of course, some people on this list just don't think little
> things like following the guidelines we've set for ourselves is important.
And some people like to bleat and moan, and ignore the simple point
in the current con
On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 05:33:11AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Should we have another vote to see if the social contract deserves
> supermajority protection? Is there some other way of doing things that
> won't require a boring mass of legalese or continued pointless ineffectual
> flaming and cou
On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 06:14:53PM -0400, Robert D. Hilliard wrote:
> On 19 July, Manoj proposed a constitutional amendment requiring
> a super-majority vote to change the SC or DFSG. This proposal is at:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-project-0007/msg00061.html
>
> On the same date
On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 01:39:34AM +1100, Peter Eckersley wrote:
> > No. There's nothing wrong if someone feels dissapointed if "no" wins by 80%.
> > It would mean that a brutal majority of the Debian developers care little
> > about the politics of the Project. I would not find that result very
>
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't think so.. It seems like the only real solution is to set this
> issue aside and fix the constitution first. This too would be precedent
> setting, but IMO it would be a better precedent than effectively modifying
> the constitution in practic
On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 05:33:11AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Should we have another vote to see if the social contract deserves
> supermajority protection? Is there some other way of doing things that
> won't require a boring mass of legalese or continued pointless ineffectual
> flaming and co
>>"Jordi" == Jordi Mallach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jordi> No. There's nothing wrong if someone feels dissapointed if
Jordi> "no" wins by 80%. It would mean that a brutal majority of the
Jordi> Debian developers care little about the politics of the
Jordi> Project. I would not find that re
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Indeed, the Social Contract is "a document that defines Debian's relationship
> with other free software entitites and describes the goals of the project."
> However, the above quoted section does not refer to the modification
> of existing documents or
Anthony Towns writes:
> As far as I can tell though there weren't any actual solutions to the
> problem suggested.
>
> The problem is:
>
> (a) A group of developers don't think the social contract can
> legally (according to the constitution) be modified
> (b) A group of d
>>"Jordi" == Jordi Mallach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jordi> No. There's nothing wrong if someone feels dissapointed if
Jordi> "no" wins by 80%. It would mean that a brutal majority of the
Jordi> Debian developers care little about the politics of the
Jordi> Project. I would not find that r
Jordi Mallach writes:
> On Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 07:57:32AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Joseph> I think I would be disappointed if the vote was
> > Joseph> overwhelmingly against as the (seemingly largely uninformed)
> >Ah yes, the public disagrees with me, so it must be the
> > u
On Sat, 30 Sep 2000, Jordi Mallach wrote:
> > Ah yes, the public disagrees with me, so it must be the
> > uninformed, unwashed masses who don't know what's good for them. Can
> > you feel the cedibility dropping?
>
> No. There's nothing wrong if someone feels dissapointed if "no" wins by 8
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As far as I can tell though there weren't any actual solutions to the
> problem suggested.
>
> The problem is:
>
> (a) A group of developers don't think the social contract can
> legally (according to the constitution) be modified
>
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Indeed, the Social Contract is "a document that defines Debian's relationship
> with other free software entitites and describes the goals of the project."
> However, the above quoted section does not refer to the modification
> of existing documents o
On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 03:34:13AM -0600, John Galt wrote:
> > However, I find konqueror (in kdebase) quite able already. It does
> > everything I've needed netscape to do, including ssl, cookie management,
> > java and javascript, and good page layout.
> What was the version number of that in Pot
On Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 07:57:32AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Joseph> I think I would be disappointed if the vote was
> Joseph> overwhelmingly against as the (seemingly largely uninformed)
> Ah yes, the public disagrees with me, so it must be the
> uninformed, unwashed masses who don
Jordi Mallach writes:
> On Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 07:57:32AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Joseph> I think I would be disappointed if the vote was
> > Joseph> overwhelmingly against as the (seemingly largely uninformed)
> >Ah yes, the public disagrees with me, so it must be the
> >
On Sat, 30 Sep 2000, Jordi Mallach wrote:
> > Ah yes, the public disagrees with me, so it must be the
> > uninformed, unwashed masses who don't know what's good for them. Can
> > you feel the cedibility dropping?
>
> No. There's nothing wrong if someone feels dissapointed if "no" wins by
On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 03:34:13AM -0600, John Galt wrote:
> > However, I find konqueror (in kdebase) quite able already. It does
> > everything I've needed netscape to do, including ssl, cookie management,
> > java and javascript, and good page layout.
> What was the version number of that in Po
On Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 07:57:32AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Joseph> I think I would be disappointed if the vote was
> Joseph> overwhelmingly against as the (seemingly largely uninformed)
> Ah yes, the public disagrees with me, so it must be the
> uninformed, unwashed masses who do
John Galt wrote:
> > However, I find konqueror (in kdebase) quite able already. It does
> > everything I've needed netscape to do, including ssl, cookie management,
> > java and javascript, and good page layout.
>
> What was the version number of that in Potato again?
Um, the contents of potato
On Fri, 29 Sep 2000, Joey Hess wrote:
> Joseph Carter wrote:
> > Without regard to constitutionality, I believe there are technical reasons
> > why non-free should remain a little while longer. Netscape is the biggest
> > of them at the moment since currently Mozilla is not ready to replace it.
>
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 06:24:54PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > You can't because it ain't there. The only thing the constitution says
> > > about any of this is that the secretary may make a decision. Apparently,
> > > that decision need n
John Galt wrote:
> > However, I find konqueror (in kdebase) quite able already. It does
> > everything I've needed netscape to do, including ssl, cookie management,
> > java and javascript, and good page layout.
>
> What was the version number of that in Potato again?
Um, the contents of potato
On Sat, 30 Sep 2000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 04:31:56AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > There hasn't been any other attempt to reconcile the above three points
> > of view. So much for consensus building.
>
> So, uh, would anyone like to actual suggest some course of action
On Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 10:35:01AM +1100, Drake Diedrich wrote:
>And don't you just live the mention of distribution by floppy. How many
> would that be now? :) Tape.. how many Debian users have ever even used a
> tape drive? The manifesto hardly needs editting, it's an entertaining
> histo
On Fri, 29 Sep 2000, Joey Hess wrote:
> Joseph Carter wrote:
> > Without regard to constitutionality, I believe there are technical reasons
> > why non-free should remain a little while longer. Netscape is the biggest
> > of them at the moment since currently Mozilla is not ready to replace it.
On Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 06:24:54PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > You can't because it ain't there. The only thing the constitution says
> > about any of this is that the secretary may make a decision. Apparently,
> > that decision need not be otherwise constitutional. I don't believe th
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 06:24:54PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > You can't because it ain't there. The only thing the constitution says
> > > about any of this is that the secretary may make a decision. Apparently,
> > > that decision need
On Sat, 30 Sep 2000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 04:31:56AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > There hasn't been any other attempt to reconcile the above three points
> > of view. So much for consensus building.
>
> So, uh, would anyone like to actual suggest some course of actio
On Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 10:35:01AM +1100, Drake Diedrich wrote:
>And don't you just live the mention of distribution by floppy. How many
> would that be now? :) Tape.. how many Debian users have ever even used a
> tape drive? The manifesto hardly needs editting, it's an entertaining
> hist
On Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 06:24:54PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > You can't because it ain't there. The only thing the constitution says
> > about any of this is that the secretary may make a decision. Apparently,
> > that decision need not be otherwise constitutional. I don't believe t
42 matches
Mail list logo
