Hi,
>>"Branden" == Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Branden> That's not precisely what I recall us agreeing to. I recall
Branden> us agreeing to a ballot that, I suppose, could take a form
Branden> like this:
I guess memory does not serve me as well as it should
;-). How
On Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 01:50:49PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> If my memory serves me correctly, Branden I decide that our
> proposals should be on the same ballot; though there does remain some
> difference in them. We think that there should be three options of
> the ballot: (orde
* Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001108 19:01]:
> You think something has been learned from all of this? bwahahahaha!
Yes. No more vacations for Darren. :)
--
``Oh Lord; Ooh you are so big; So absolutely huge; Gosh we're all really
impressed down here, I can tell you.''
>
> Are we all now clear on why ballots must be understandable, and why
> transparency of process is important?
As an observer, and not a developer (note to self: you've been hanging
out on the debian developers lists for 4+ years now, get off your ass
and become a developer already!), I think
On Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 05:26:44PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Are we all now clear on why ballots must be understandable, and why
> transparency of process is important?
You think something has been learned from all of this? bwahahahaha!
--
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 01:50:49PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> If my memory serves me correctly, Branden I decide that our
> proposals should be on the same ballot; though there does remain some
> difference in them. We think that there should be three options of
> the ballot: (ord
* Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001108 19:01]:
> You think something has been learned from all of this? bwahahahaha!
Yes. No more vacations for Darren. :)
--
``Oh Lord; Ooh you are so big; So absolutely huge; Gosh we're all really
impressed down here, I can tell you.''
--
To UNSUBSCRI
>
> Are we all now clear on why ballots must be understandable, and why
> transparency of process is important?
As an observer, and not a developer (note to self: you've been hanging
out on the debian developers lists for 4+ years now, get off your ass
and become a developer already!), I thin
Are we all now clear on why ballots must be understandable, and why
transparency of process is important?
On Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 05:26:44PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Are we all now clear on why ballots must be understandable, and why
> transparency of process is important?
You think something has been learned from all of this? bwahahahaha!
--
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Are we all now clear on why ballots must be understandable, and why
transparency of process is important?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hi,
If my memory serves me correctly, Branden I decide that our
proposals should be on the same ballot; though there does remain some
difference in them. We think that there should be three options of
the ballot: (ordering of A and B was done by a coi
There are two standing proposals that I know of. If something hasn't been
done (I believe either Manoj or Overfiend are on vacation or recently came
back from), I'd like to clearify.
I had a conversation with Overfiend last week and was informed
(unofficially, unfortunatly) that he and Manoj came
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hi,
If my memory serves me correctly, Branden I decide that our
proposals should be on the same ballot; though there does remain some
difference in them. We think that there should be three options of
the ballot: (ordering of A and B was done by a co
My gratitude to Branden Robinson for help in constructing this message in a
form that will hopefully be clear to all.
*** SNIP HERE ***
Per section A.5 ("Expiry") of the constitution, both John Goerzen's General
Resolution regarding non-free, and Anthony Towns's amendment thereto, have
expired.
There are two standing proposals that I know of. If something hasn't been
done (I believe either Manoj or Overfiend are on vacation or recently came
back from), I'd like to clearify.
I had a conversation with Overfiend last week and was informed
(unofficially, unfortunatly) that he and Manoj cam
My gratitude to Branden Robinson for help in constructing this message in a
form that will hopefully be clear to all.
*** SNIP HERE ***
Per section A.5 ("Expiry") of the constitution, both John Goerzen's General
Resolution regarding non-free, and Anthony Towns's amendment thereto, have
expired.
On Sun, Nov 05, 2000 at 02:34:44AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > [Seriously -- I'm rather thick skinned, and wouldn't recognize an insult
> > if it came up and whapped me on the knuckles.]
On Tue, Nov 07, 2000 at 11:10:10AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Clearly, then, I am going to have to try
On Mon, Nov 06, 2000 at 11:06:31PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> BTW I would have edited the vote pages (since that area of the web site is
> allowed to all web people), but I thought it wasn't allowed to anyone except
> the Secretary to do it.
>
> If it is in fact allowed for others to edit those p
On Sun, Nov 05, 2000 at 02:34:44AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > [Seriously -- I'm rather thick skinned, and wouldn't recognize an insult
> > if it came up and whapped me on the knuckles.]
On Tue, Nov 07, 2000 at 11:10:10AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Clearly, then, I am going to have to try
On Mon, Nov 06, 2000 at 11:06:31PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> BTW I would have edited the vote pages (since that area of the web site is
> allowed to all web people), but I thought it wasn't allowed to anyone except
> the Secretary to do it.
>
> If it is in fact allowed for others to edit those
21 matches
Mail list logo
