Shouldn't there be a link to the constitution from the Debian
homepage? How about above or below the link to the Social Contract?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 10:37:25AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> The Constitution provides no support whatsoever for what the Secretary
> has done.
Actually it does.
> Had he thought that the proposal was not Constitutional, he should
> have rejected it, NOT tried to add things to the Constitution
On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 10:37:25AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> The Constitution provides no support whatsoever for what the Secretary
> has done.
Actually it does.
> Had he thought that the proposal was not Constitutional, he should
> have rejected it, NOT tried to add things to the Constitutio
On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 08:42:24AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 06:15:56PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > Three out of four states lead to keeping non-free. Pick one path.
>
> There are more than four states. You've ignored:
>
> (*) further discussion
> (*) failure to re
Previously Chris Lawrence wrote:
> I'm fairly sure Wichert posted several months ago that he was opposed
> to Branden's proposal, but I can't seem to find the message locally
> (and can't even remember what list it was on...). The only reason I
> remember it is that his opposition surprised me (gi
John Goerzen wrote:
> Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > 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 replac
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That's the whole point of this proposal. John feels that non-free has
> outlived its usefulness and should be purged now since the vast majority
> of people no longer need it (other than the software they already have
> installed, which wouldn't go away
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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.
So use an installer packa
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The constituition does not seem to refer to modification of existing
> documents at all (except the constituition itself). There are therefore
> two alternatives:
>
> 1. Modify the constituition to add provision for modifying and revoking
>existing
No offense Seth, but I've heard all these arguments before. I am
getting tired of repeating myself as well.
I AM NOT THE FBI INVADING YOUR LIVING ROOM WITH RM, TRYING TO DELETE
ALL NON-FREE SOFTWARE FROM YOUR COMPUTER.
You can keep and use all the non-free software that you like.
The Debian dis
There is no "sleight of hand" going on here. Issuing a document that
states that "Social Contract version 1 is hereby declared outdated and
replaced by this newer text" accomplishes the exact same thing as
modifying it. I am not claiming that we must destroy all evidence
that there was ever a dif
On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 08:42:24AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 06:15:56PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > Three out of four states lead to keeping non-free. Pick one path.
>
> There are more than four states. You've ignored:
>
> (*) further discussion
> (*) failure to r
Previously Chris Lawrence wrote:
> I'm fairly sure Wichert posted several months ago that he was opposed
> to Branden's proposal, but I can't seem to find the message locally
> (and can't even remember what list it was on...). The only reason I
> remember it is that his opposition surprised me (g
John Goerzen wrote:
> Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > 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 repla
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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.
So use an installer pack
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That's the whole point of this proposal. John feels that non-free has
> outlived its usefulness and should be purged now since the vast majority
> of people no longer need it (other than the software they already have
> installed, which wouldn't go awa
No offense Seth, but I've heard all these arguments before. I am
getting tired of repeating myself as well.
I AM NOT THE FBI INVADING YOUR LIVING ROOM WITH RM, TRYING TO DELETE
ALL NON-FREE SOFTWARE FROM YOUR COMPUTER.
You can keep and use all the non-free software that you like.
The Debian di
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The constituition does not seem to refer to modification of existing
> documents at all (except the constituition itself). There are therefore
> two alternatives:
>
> 1. Modify the constituition to add provision for modifying and revoking
>existin
There is no "sleight of hand" going on here. Issuing a document that
states that "Social Contract version 1 is hereby declared outdated and
replaced by this newer text" accomplishes the exact same thing as
modifying it. I am not claiming that we must destroy all evidence
that there was ever a di
On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 06:21:51AM -0500, Joseph Carter wrote:
> A CFV was issued. Several people waited. And waited. The lists got
> quiet while people waited. If your are the chair of the technical
> committee, then you too have been ignoring your duties. Due process
> has been followed and a vot
On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 06:15:56PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> Three out of four states lead to keeping non-free. Pick one path.
There are more than four states. You've ignored:
(*) further discussion
(*) failure to reach quorum
--
Raul
On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 09:10:54PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> The notion of "Foundational Documents" is completely new stuff without any
> hint of precedent within the Constitution. Regardless of its merits (or
I'd say that the constitution itself is some kind of precedent. The idea
is t
On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 06:03:48AM -0500, Joseph Carter wrote:
> That'd be far too easy.
Aren't you meant to rant and rave at this point about
how even the idea violates the constituition and will
be Debian's undoing, even though you personally think
it's a great idea?
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt
On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 06:21:51AM -0500, Joseph Carter wrote:
> A CFV was issued. Several people waited. And waited. The lists got
> quiet while people waited. If your are the chair of the technical
> committee, then you too have been ignoring your duties. Due process has
> been followed and
On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 11:31:59PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > So the Chairman of the Technical Committee needs to be nagged to
> > perform his duties? He can't be expected to subscribe to debian-vote
> > and notice that weeks pass after a CFV and the Project Secretary still
> > hasn't issued a b
On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 12:31:14PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> I don't think the Secretary should summarize proposals this way -- it's
> almost impossible to do without bias. Presumably the proponents of
> the proposals spent a lot of time crafting them to say exactly what
> they should say,
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 01:26:46PM -0400, Buddha Buck wrote:
> The main proposal under discussion is by John Goerzen, and can be found here:
> [LINK]. In summary, this proposal would AMEND the Debian Social Contract
> to eliminate the commitment to support for non-free on Debian's FTP servers.
>
On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 10:44:24AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > two real results:
> > * keep non-free,
> > * remove non-free
> IMHO this should be offered to a vote-ballot:
>
> [ ] keep non-free,
> [ ] remove non-free
>
> Just mark what you want.
>
> I can't imagine why whe
On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 06:21:51AM -0500, Joseph Carter wrote:
> A CFV was issued. Several people waited. And waited. The lists got
> quiet while people waited. If your are the chair of the technical
> committee, then you too have been ignoring your duties. Due process
> has been followed and a vo
On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 06:15:56PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> Three out of four states lead to keeping non-free. Pick one path.
There are more than four states. You've ignored:
(*) further discussion
(*) failure to reach quorum
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wit
On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 09:10:54PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> The notion of "Foundational Documents" is completely new stuff without any
> hint of precedent within the Constitution. Regardless of its merits (or
I'd say that the constitution itself is some kind of precedent. The idea
is
On Thursday 12 October 2000 11:51, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Chester Hosey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > This is true, but unless you are the most fanatical of GNOME users,
> > konqueror could very well be good enough to replace Netscape.
> > (however, I've not tried KDE's news and mail clien
On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 06:21:51AM -0500, Joseph Carter wrote:
> A CFV was issued. Several people waited. And waited. The lists got
> quiet while people waited. If your are the chair of the technical
> committee, then you too have been ignoring your duties. Due process has
> been followed and
On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 06:03:48AM -0500, Joseph Carter wrote:
> That'd be far too easy.
Aren't you meant to rant and rave at this point about
how even the idea violates the constituition and will
be Debian's undoing, even though you personally think
it's a great idea?
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt
On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 11:31:59PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > So the Chairman of the Technical Committee needs to be nagged to
> > perform his duties? He can't be expected to subscribe to debian-vote
> > and notice that weeks pass after a CFV and the Project Secretary still
> > hasn't issued a
On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 12:31:14PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> I don't think the Secretary should summarize proposals this way -- it's
> almost impossible to do without bias. Presumably the proponents of
> the proposals spent a lot of time crafting them to say exactly what
> they should say
On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 10:44:24AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > two real results:
> > * keep non-free,
> > * remove non-free
> IMHO this should be offered to a vote-ballot:
>
> [ ] keep non-free,
> [ ] remove non-free
>
> Just mark what you want.
>
> I can't imagine why whe
On Thu, 12 Oct 2000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> two real results:
> * keep non-free,
> * remove non-free
IMHO this should be offered to a vote-ballot:
[ ] keep non-free,
[ ] remove non-free
Just mark what you want.
I can't imagine why whe don't say clearly what the thing is.
Jus
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 01:26:46PM -0400, Buddha Buck wrote:
> The main proposal under discussion is by John Goerzen, and can be found here:
> [LINK]. In summary, this proposal would AMEND the Debian Social Contract
> to eliminate the commitment to support for non-free on Debian's FTP servers.
>
On Thursday 12 October 2000 11:51, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Chester Hosey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > This is true, but unless you are the most fanatical of GNOME users,
> > konqueror could very well be good enough to replace Netscape.
> > (however, I've not tried KDE's news and mail clie
On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 09:55:38PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> This grid is an oversimplification because not all states are equally
> likely. Ever taken a class in probability?
Yes I did; what's your excuse?
> You want David Welton to vote "Yes" on the first ballot because, while he
> is c
On Thu, 12 Oct 2000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> two real results:
> * keep non-free,
> * remove non-free
IMHO this should be offered to a vote-ballot:
[ ] keep non-free,
[ ] remove non-free
Just mark what you want.
I can't imagine why whe don't say clearly what the thing is.
Ju
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 03:00:29AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Indeed, I had proposed this in -project on the 19th of
> July. This addresses the same ambiguity that Brandon does in his
> proposal, but in a distincly different fashion. I would suggest that
> this should be offered as an a
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Our stances on this are different. Almost diametrically
> opposing, as people havce pointed out. Mere polemics can't hide that
> fact.
And there's no point in trying to attach labels onto the proposals;
instead, we should presume that the de
On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 09:55:38PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> This grid is an oversimplification because not all states are equally
> likely. Ever taken a class in probability?
Yes I did; what's your excuse?
> You want David Welton to vote "Yes" on the first ballot because, while he
> is
45 matches
Mail list logo
