Cosponsor for Brandon Robinson's proposal

Amidst being confused by gnus, I also was confused by a cut&paste bug in gnome-terminal. So here is my cosponsorship again, with a signature that should verify. Thomas -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I hereby sponsor (second) Brandon Robinson's proposal, as posted to debian-vo

Re: Cosponsor for Brandon Robinson's proposal

Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'm sure the Project Secretary wouldn't invalidate your second for spelling > my name wrong, but *I* might... :) Oh geez, well, never mind. it's not my day. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble?

Re: [BALLOT] Social Contract Change Amendment

On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 08:06:36PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > You can vote either way here without liking the one you vote for > today. For example, you might think both are horrible ideas, but > think John's is certain not to pass but Anthony's might. In that > case, you would vote not

Re: Cosponsor for Brandon Robinson's proposal

On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 11:34:09PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > I hereby sponsor (second) Brandon Robinson's proposal, as posted to > debian-vote.The proposal had Message ID > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, and was tagged with ID AA12031 by > murphy.debian.org. I'm sure the Project Secretary would

Re: [BALLOT] Social Contract Change Amendment

On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 07:49:19PM -0500, Debian Project Secretary wrote: > -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > [ ] Choice 1: Yes > [ 1 ] Choice 2: No > [ 2 ] Choice 3: Further Discussion > > -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=

Re: [BALLOT] Social Contract Change Amendment

On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 10:54:26PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Eek, no. If Towns wanted a separate GR, he would have proposed one. > Instead, he proposed an *amendment*, which, if it succeeds, amends the > proposal, but does not thereby adopt it. It's not appropriate to apply Robert's R

Re: current ballot must be withdrawn per Constitution A.5

On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 01:43:17AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > The most generous (smallest) estimate of downtime is 20 July to 22 August, > a period of 38 days. More than 4 weeks any way you slice it. I apologize. My math here is wrong, but harmlessly so (fortunately). 20 21 2

Re: PROPOSED: [CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT] disambiguation of 4.1.5

On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 11:29:23PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I second Branden's proposal. > > But unsigned, so it just doesn't count. Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ... [-- PGP output follows (current time: Tue Oct 10 19:40:01 200

Re: Cosponsor for Brandon Robinson's proposal

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes: > I'm baffled. As I sent this mail it was signed. Here it is again. Oh, I see now, gnus was over happily hiding the signature. Grr. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTE

current ballot must be withdrawn per Constitution A.5

Per section A.5 ("Expiry") of the constitution, I must point out that both John Goerzen's General Resolution regarding non-free, and Anthony Towns's amended version thereof (which per A.1.3 stands on its own as an independent GR since John Goerzen did not accept it) have expired. The entirety of

Re: PROPOSED: [CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT] disambiguation of 4.1.5

On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 11:29:23PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I second Branden's proposal. > > But unsigned, so it just doesn't count. Please check your mailer. When it left my exim queue, it was signed. Dan /-

Re: Cosponsor for Brandon Robinson's proposal

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes: > I'm baffled. As I sent this mail it was signed. Here it is again. Oh, I see now, gnus was over happily hiding the signature. Grr. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTE

Re: Cosponsor for Brandon Robinson's proposal

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes: > I hereby sponsor (second) Brandon Robinson's proposal, as posted to debian-vote.The >proposal had Message ID <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > and was tagged with ID AA12031 by murphy.debian.org. I'm baffled. As I sent this mail it was signed. Here it

Re: PROPOSED: [CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT] disambiguation of 4.1.5

I second Branden's proposal. -- Stevie Strickland| 325912 Georgia Tech Station [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Georgia Institute of Technology http://kelewan.debian.net/~sstrickl | Atlanta, GA 30332 Official Debian GNU/Linux Developer | CS 2130 TA PGP signature

Cosponsor for Brandon Robinson's proposal

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I hereby sponsor (second) Brandon Robinson's proposal, as posted to debian-vote.The proposal had Message ID <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, and was tagged with ID AA12031 by murphy.debian.org. Thomas -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/

Re: PROPOSED: [CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT] disambiguation of 4.1.5

Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I second Branden's proposal. But unsigned, so it just doesn't count. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: PROPOSED: [CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT] disambiguation of 4.1.5

I second Branden's proposal. Dan /\ /\ | Daniel Jacobowitz|__|SCS Class of 2002 | | Debian GNU/Linux Developer__Carnegie Mellon University | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | [E

Re: PROPOSED: [CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT] disambiguation of 4.1.5

On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 01:05:54AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > according to , the current > Project Secretary refuses to recognizes Proposed General Resolutions sent > to any list other than debian-project. ^^

PROPOSED: [CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT] disambiguation of 4.1.5

* This proposal was originally made to debian-project on 19 July, but according to , the current Project Secretary refuses to recognizes Proposed General Resolutions sent to any list other than debian-project. * I have been told, secondhand, that t

Re: [BALLOT] Social Contract Change Amendment

Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Also, it is still not clear to what question the ballot answers of "yes" or > "no" are being given. It doesn't seem like that simple a matter, since a > person could disagree with both Anthony's amendment and John's GR. The question being presented

Re: [BALLOT] Social Contract Change Amendment

On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 07:49:19PM -0500, Debian Project Secretary wrote: > These instructions are a little clearer Since the meanings of "Choice 1" and "Choice 2" exchanged meanings, I assume that all votes cast with the first ballot will be discarded and the submitters asked to vote again us

[BALLOT] Social Contract Change Amendment

These instructions are a little clearer - CALL FOR VOTES (1 of 2) Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC Oct 23, 2000 This vote is being conducted as required by the Debia

[BALLOT] Social Contract Change Amendment

CALL FOR VOTES (1 of 2) Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC Oct 23, 2000 This vote is being conducted as required by the Debian Constitution. For voting questions only contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] For details on Choice 1, see http://www.deb