On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 09:04:31PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> A. This has no business being a general resolution, and would be an
>abuse of that process, IMHO[1].
[...]
> [1] If it's not, that's a bug in the constitution. Any quibblers who would
> like to play constitutional lawyer, please
>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Anthony> On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 03:27:59PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> --
>> A.3. Voting procedure
>> 1. Each independent set of related amendments is voted on i
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:47:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Shouldn't the quorom be counted at the same time the supermajority is? ie:
> "If a quorum is required for an option, there must be [...] default
> option. If there are not, then that option is discarded, and reference
> to it in ball
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 11:06:00AM -0700, David N. Welton wrote:
> Those of us without root, as far as I can see, have only the route of
> "democracy" in the form of our system of resolutions, the
> constitution, and all that other nonsense, to get things done that we
> can't directly do ourselves.
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 03:27:59PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> --
> A.3. Voting procedure
> 1. Each independent set of related amendments is voted on in a
>separate ballot. Each such ballot has as options all the
Hi,
I am against this proposal as well. W should not be making
things harder for legitimate users, treating them as acceptable
collateral damage in the war on spam. Spam filtering works; and people
who still have a problem should investigate
http://crm114.sourceforge.net/ for an excel
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:47:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Shouldn't the quorom be counted at the same time the supermajority is? ie:
> "If a quorum is required for an option, there must be [...] default
> option. If there are not, then that option is discarded, and reference
> to it in bal
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 11:06:00AM -0700, David N. Welton wrote:
> Those of us without root, as far as I can see, have only the route of
> "democracy" in the form of our system of resolutions, the
> constitution, and all that other nonsense, to get things done that we
> can't directly do ourselves
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 03:27:59PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> --
> A.3. Voting procedure
> 1. Each independent set of related amendments is voted on in a
>separate ballot. Each such ballot has as options all th
A. This has no business being a general resolution, and would be an
abuse of that process, IMHO[1].
B. If by some fluke all or any substantial number of these proposals came
to pass, whether by GR ot any other means, I would no longer find Debian
to be the type of project which I could
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 06:59:26PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Draft. Comments welcome. Please Cc the list, not me.
I'd just like to say I agree with the proposal.
Pete
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 06:59:26PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> - The public web archives of the different debian mailing lists, past,
> present and future, will be processed so that it becomes impossible
> for an ordinary user not having special privileges to mail someone who
> posted something t
A. This has no business being a general resolution, and would be an
abuse of that process, IMHO[1].
B. If by some fluke all or any substantial number of these proposals came
to pass, whether by GR ot any other means, I would no longer find Debian
to be the type of project which I coul
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Santiago Vila wrote:
[subscribers automatically whitelisted]
> No other mail will reach the lists until it's approved by a moderator
If a poster was approved once, they get added to the white list too.
Auto Approval of mails with valid References/In-Reply-To could also
work.
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 06:59:26PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Draft. Comments welcome. Please Cc the list, not me.
I'd just like to say I agree with the proposal.
Pete
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 06:59:26PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> - The public web archives of the different debian mailing lists, past,
> present and future, will be processed so that it becomes impossible
> for an ordinary user not having special privileges to mail someone who
> posted something
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi folks,
Raul Miller and I have been hashing this off line for a bit,
and this is what we have come up with (most of the driving came from
Raul, I am merely pushing this into the -vote list):
It still needs to be reviewed, and we'll need a
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Santiago Vila wrote:
[subscribers automatically whitelisted]
> No other mail will reach the lists until it's approved by a moderator
If a poster was approved once, they get added to the white list too.
Auto Approval of mails with valid References/In-Reply-To could also
work
Hi Branden!
You wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 06:59:26PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > Draft. Comments welcome. Please Cc the list, not me.
>
> I object to this proposal in its entirety.
Me too.
--
Kind regards,
++
| Bas
On Wed, 2002-10-16 at 12:59, Santiago Vila wrote:
> - The Debian source package format will be modified so that .dsc
> and .changes files do not need to have the complete email of the
> maintainer, only his name and gpg signature.
That is completely insane.
Enough comments.
I withdraw my proposal (better said: I won't make it official).
Thanks everybody.
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 12:44:06PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 06:59:26PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > Draft. Comments welcome. Please Cc the list, not me.
>
> I object to this proposal in its entirety.
Ditto.
Santiago,
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 06:59:26PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Draft. Comments welcome. Please Cc the list, not me.
> - The public web archives of the different debian mailing lists, past,
> present and future, will be processed so that it becomes impossible
> for an ordinary user not
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 06:59:26PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
>> Draft. Comments welcome. Please Cc the list, not me.
>
> I object to this proposal in its entirety.
How about giving arguments?
--
Jérôme Marant
http://marant.org
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 06:59:26PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Draft. Comments welcome. Please Cc the list, not me.
>
>
I also object to this in its entirety.
Now, if you want to be helpful, introduce tarpitting int
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 06:59:26PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > Draft. Comments welcome. Please Cc the list, not me.
>
> I object to this proposal in its entirety.
me too
yours,
sorry for replying to the wrong list
> Draft. Comments welcome. Please Cc the list, not me.
>
> ===
>= Those who have in Debian the power to do so, will implement the following:
>
>
> To avoid spammers harvesting addresses fro
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi folks,
Raul Miller and I have been hashing this off line for a bit,
and this is what we have come up with (most of the driving came from
Raul, I am merely pushing this into the -vote list):
It still needs to be reviewed, and we'll need
Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If you want something done, do it yourself.
Maybe telling him off was the right thing to do, but not in this way,
unless you propose to give him root to let him do things himself.
Those of us without root, as far as I can see, have only the route of
"demo
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > Those who have in Debian the power to do so, will implement the following:
>
> The rest of your email is ignorable, because the above is blatantly wrong.
>
> You can't force anyone to do anything, period.
>
> If
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 06:59:26PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Draft. Comments welcome. Please Cc the list, not me.
I object to this proposal in its entirety.
--
G. Branden Robinson|
Debian GNU/Linux |Yeah, that's what Jesus would do.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Draft. Comments welcome. Please Cc the list, not me.
>
>
> Those who have in Debian the power to do so, will implement the following:
The rest of your email is ignorable, becau
Hi Branden!
You wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 06:59:26PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > Draft. Comments welcome. Please Cc the list, not me.
>
> I object to this proposal in its entirety.
Me too.
--
Kind regards,
++
| Ba
Draft. Comments welcome. Please Cc the list, not me.
Those who have in Debian the power to do so, will implement the following:
To avoid spammers harvesting addresses from the list archives:
- The public web archives o
On Wed, 2002-10-16 at 12:59, Santiago Vila wrote:
> - The Debian source package format will be modified so that .dsc
> and .changes files do not need to have the complete email of the
> maintainer, only his name and gpg signature.
That is completely insane.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
Enough comments.
I withdraw my proposal (better said: I won't make it official).
Thanks everybody.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 12:44:06PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 06:59:26PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > Draft. Comments welcome. Please Cc the list, not me.
>
> I object to this proposal in its entirety.
Ditto.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
Santiago,
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 06:59:26PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Draft. Comments welcome. Please Cc the list, not me.
> - The public web archives of the different debian mailing lists, past,
> present and future, will be processed so that it becomes impossible
> for an ordinary user no
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 06:59:26PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
>> Draft. Comments welcome. Please Cc the list, not me.
>
> I object to this proposal in its entirety.
How about giving arguments?
--
Jérôme Marant
http://marant.org
--
To UNSUBSCR
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 06:59:26PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Draft. Comments welcome. Please Cc the list, not me.
>
>
I also object to this in its entirety.
Now, if you want to be helpful, introduce tarpitting in
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 06:59:26PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > Draft. Comments welcome. Please Cc the list, not me.
>
> I object to this proposal in its entirety.
me too
yours,
sorry for replying to the wrong list
> Draft. Comments welcome. Please Cc the list, not me.
>
> ===
>= Those who have in Debian the power to do so, will implement the following:
>
>
> To avoid spammers harvesting addresses fr
Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If you want something done, do it yourself.
Maybe telling him off was the right thing to do, but not in this way,
unless you propose to give him root to let him do things himself.
Those of us without root, as far as I can see, have only the route of
"dem
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > Those who have in Debian the power to do so, will implement the following:
>
> The rest of your email is ignorable, because the above is blatantly wrong.
>
> You can't force anyone to do anything, period.
>
> If
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 06:59:26PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Draft. Comments welcome. Please Cc the list, not me.
I object to this proposal in its entirety.
--
G. Branden Robinson|
Debian GNU/Linux |Yeah, that's what Jesus would do.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Draft. Comments welcome. Please Cc the list, not me.
>
>
> Those who have in Debian the power to do so, will implement the following:
The rest of your email is ignorable, beca
Draft. Comments welcome. Please Cc the list, not me.
Those who have in Debian the power to do so, will implement the following:
To avoid spammers harvesting addresses from the list archives:
- The public web archives
47 matches
Mail list logo
