On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 23:02, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 22:44:28 +0100, Oliver Elphick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Nevertheless, that use of "shall" is so strange that I had to read
> > the sentence twice to understand it. It is not correct English.
>
> So you say. I
Hi folks,
Here is the current incarnation.
manoj
##
Votes must be received by Tue, Oct 28 23:59:59 UTC 2003.
The following ballot is for voting on a General Resolution to amend the
Debian Constitution to d
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 22:39:24 -0400, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Will implies a wish as well. You think Devotee can have wishes, but
>> not intents? You should probably learn about the concept of
>> anthropomorphism.
> "The rock will fall at 9.8 m/s/s."
> You
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Will implies a wish as well. You think Devotee can have
> wishes, but not intents? You should probably learn about the concept
> of anthropomorphism.
"The rock will fall at 9.8 m/s/s."
You'd claim the rock is willing itself to fall?
> In any case, this is
Hi folks,
Here is the current incarnation.
manoj
##
Votes must be received by Tue, Oct 28 23:59:59 UTC 2003.
The following ballot is for voting on a General Resolution to amend the
Debian Constitution to d
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 22:39:24 -0400, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Will implies a wish as well. You think Devotee can have wishes, but
>> not intents? You should probably learn about the concept of
>> anthropomorphism.
> "The rock will fall at 9.8 m/s/s."
> You
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 20:08:27 -0400, Aaron M Ucko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I have a couple of typographical nits: Manoj Srivastava
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> [ ] Choice 1: Proposal A [3:1 super majority needed]
> [...]
>> these proposals require a 3:1 super-majority in order to pass (as
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Will implies a wish as well. You think Devotee can have
> wishes, but not intents? You should probably learn about the concept
> of anthropomorphism.
"The rock will fall at 9.8 m/s/s."
You'd claim the rock is willing itself to fall?
> In any case, this is
I have a couple of typographical nits:
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> equally (as long as all choices X you make fall in the range 1<= X <= 4).
Please space the inequality evenly (which may require moving it to the
next line). Alternatively, you could substitute [1, 4].
> [ ]
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 20:08:27 -0400, Aaron M Ucko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I have a couple of typographical nits: Manoj Srivastava
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> [ ] Choice 1: Proposal A [3:1 super majority needed]
> [...]
>> these proposals require a 3:1 super-majority in order to pass (as
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 22:44:28 +0100, Oliver Elphick said:
> On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 20:15, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>
>> >> your ballot; the voting mechanism shall not be able to decrypt
>> >> your message.
>> > I'm no native speaker of english, but that "shall" seems strange
>> > to me. Maybe a "
Hi,
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 16:43:04 -0400 (EDT), Joe Nahmias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Yet another update for the ballot.
>> conducted in accordance with the policy delinated in Section A,
>> Standard
> s/delinated/delineated/
Fixed now.
manoj
--
And
I have a couple of typographical nits:
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> equally (as long as all choices X you make fall in the range 1<= X <= 4).
Please space the inequality evenly (which may require moving it to the
next line). Alternatively, you could substitute [1, 4].
> [ ]
On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 22:20, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I had a banner come across my screen that said to contact prize
> department immediately that I was the 50,000,000 to visit. What do I
> do?
Ignore it. It's some kind of hoax. We've seen other people who have
been subjected toit.
Debian i
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 11:37:12AM -0400, David Coe wrote:
> I apologize if this has already been discussed, and for not raising
> the question earlier.
>
> Because A, B, and C all make the same change to the first sentence of
> paragraph 5:
>
> > -5. Issue nontechnical policy documents and s
I had a banner come across my screen that said to contact prize department immediately that I was the 50,000,000 to visit. What do I do?
THANK YOU,
JOHNNY SCOTT
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 20:15, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> >> your ballot; the voting mechanism shall not be able to decrypt your
> >> message.
> > I'm no native speaker of english, but that "shall" seems strange to
> > me. Maybe a "will" would be more appropriate?
>
> No. I was taught Engli
Hi,
The following is the public key used which shall be used by
the vote engine to sign acks sent out. It has been signed by my key,
and I will also include it in the ballot itself.
manoj
-BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
mQGiBD+LCu8RBACg6O
Very simple "English" question. Please elucidate me.
Was there any specific reason to use "3:1 majority" and "3:1
super-majority" in a same section for Proposal A and C? They look
inconsistent to me but seem to cause no real impact.
I am talking following sections:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 02:4
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>Yet another update for the ballot.
> conducted in accordance with the policy delinated in Section A, Standard
s/delinated/delineated/
Other than that, looks good.
Joe
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 01:37:59PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 11:09:12AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > There are definitely two camps about this. One camp, whose
> > views I subscribe to, believes that the juxtaposition is mere
> > happenstance; and that whe
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 22:44:28 +0100, Oliver Elphick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 20:15, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>
>> >> your ballot; the voting mechanism shall not be able to decrypt
>> >> your message.
>> > I'm no native speaker of english, but that "shall" seems strange
>>
Hi,
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 16:43:04 -0400 (EDT), Joe Nahmias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Yet another update for the ballot.
>> conducted in accordance with the policy delinated in Section A,
>> Standard
> s/delinated/delineated/
Fixed now.
manoj
--
And
Hi,
Yet another update for the ballot. I've corrected run on
sentences, removed a "me" from the rationale, added clarifications in
the rationale that the proposal intends the DFSG and the SC to be
considered distinct works.
manoj
On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 22:20, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I had a banner come across my screen that said to contact prize
> department immediately that I was the 50,000,000 to visit. What do I
> do?
Ignore it. It's some kind of hoax. We've seen other people who have
been subjected toit.
Debian i
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 13:18:36 -0400 (EDT), Joe Nahmias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Do not erase anything between the lines below and do not change the
>> choice names.
> Out of curiousity, do you deal with this situation, and if so how?
The ballot is rejected as corrupt.
>> signed) wit
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 11:37:12AM -0400, David Coe wrote:
> I apologize if this has already been discussed, and for not raising
> the question earlier.
>
> Because A, B, and C all make the same change to the first sentence of
> paragraph 5:
>
> > -5. Issue nontechnical policy documents and s
I had a banner come across my screen that said to contact prize department immediately that I was the 50,000,000 to visit. What do I do?
THANK YOU,
JOHNNY SCOTT
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 20:15, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> >> your ballot; the voting mechanism shall not be able to decrypt your
> >> message.
> > I'm no native speaker of english, but that "shall" seems strange to
> > me. Maybe a "will" would be more appropriate?
>
> No. I was taught Engli
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 18:25:12 +0100, Jochen Voss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Hi,
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 11:04:16AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Discussion" choice is unranked, then it is equal to all other
>> unranked choices, if any -- no special consideration is given to
>> the "Further
Hi,
The following is the public key used which shall be used by
the vote engine to sign acks sent out. It has been signed by my key,
and I will also include it in the ballot itself.
manoj
-BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
mQGiBD+LCu8RBACg6O
Very simple "English" question. Please elucidate me.
Was there any specific reason to use "3:1 majority" and "3:1
super-majority" in a same section for Proposal A and C? They look
inconsistent to me but seem to cause no real impact.
I am talking following sections:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 02:4
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>Yet another update for the ballot.
> conducted in accordance with the policy delinated in Section A, Standard
s/delinated/delineated/
Other than that, looks good.
Joe
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Conta
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 11:37:12AM -0400, David Coe wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Because A, B, and C all make the same change to the first sentence of
> paragraph 5:
>
> > -5. Issue nontechnical policy documents and statements.
> > +5. Issue, supersede and withdr
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 01:37:59PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 11:09:12AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > There are definitely two camps about this. One camp, whose
> > views I subscribe to, believes that the juxtaposition is mere
> > happenstance; and that whe
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 16:13:05 + (UTC), Dylan Thurston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> On 2003-10-13, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 04:03:15AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>> __
>>>
>>> Propo
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 06:27:16PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 04:03:15AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > ==
> > It occurs to me that there are some people who may wish to afford the
> > Debian Socia
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 11:09:12AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> There are definitely two camps about this. One camp, whose
> views I subscribe to, believes that the juxtaposition is mere
> happenstance; and that when the social contract talks about us
> including a definition of what i
Hi,
Yet another update for the ballot. I've corrected run on
sentences, removed a "me" from the rationale, added clarifications in
the rationale that the proposal intends the DFSG and the SC to be
considered distinct works.
manoj
Hi,
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 11:04:16AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Discussion" choice is unranked, then it is equal to all other unranked
> choices, if any -- no special consideration is given to the "Further
> Discussion" choice by the voting software).
If the software implements the quota a
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 13:18:36 -0400 (EDT), Joe Nahmias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Do not erase anything between the lines below and do not change the
>> choice names.
> Out of curiousity, do you deal with this situation, and if so how?
The ballot is rejected as corrupt.
>> signed) wit
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 11:09:12AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 12:59:13 +0200, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 04:03:15AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> __
> >>
>
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 18:25:12 +0100, Jochen Voss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Hi,
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 11:04:16AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Discussion" choice is unranked, then it is equal to all other
>> unranked choices, if any -- no special consideration is given to
>> the "Further
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Here is the new version.
>
> This vote is being conducted in accordance with the Debian
> Constitution, Section A, Standard Resolution Procedure, to vote on a
> General Resolution to amend the constitution to disambiguate section
> 4.1.5.
Don't know how I missed th
Hi,
> what will happen if none of them receives a 3:1 majority, but the sum
> of the three does?
Sorry, wrong question.
This is a Condorcet vote; we don't sum anything.
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: The quote was selected randomly. Rea
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 11:37:12AM -0400, David Coe wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Because A, B, and C all make the same change to the first sentence of
> paragraph 5:
>
> > -5. Issue nontechnical policy documents and statements.
> > +5. Issue, supersede and withdr
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 16:13:05 + (UTC), Dylan Thurston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On 2003-10-13, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 04:03:15AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>> __
>>>
>>> Propos
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 06:27:16PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 04:03:15AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > ==
> > It occurs to me that there are some people who may wish to afford the
> > Debian Socia
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 11:37:12AM -0400, David Coe wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I apologize if this has already been discussed, and for not raising
> the question earlier.
> Because A, B, and C all make the same change to the first sentence of
> paragraph 5:
> > -
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 11:09:12AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> There are definitely two camps about this. One camp, whose
> views I subscribe to, believes that the juxtaposition is mere
> happenstance; and that when the social contract talks about us
> including a definition of what i
On 2003-10-13, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 04:03:15AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> __
>>
>> Proposal C: Clarifies status of non-technical documents. Creates
>> Foundation Documents class
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 12:59:13 +0200, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 04:03:15AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> __
>>
>> Proposal C: Clarifies status of non-technical documents. Creates
>> Founda
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 08:51:09 +0100, Jochen Voss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Hello,
> On Sun, Oct 12, 2003 at 11:36:12PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines
>> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>> [ ] Choice 1: Proposal A [ ] Choice 2: Proposal B [ ] Choi
cnhcgf
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I apologize if this has already been discussed, and for not raising
the question earlier.
Because A, B, and C all make the same change to the first sentence of
paragraph 5:
> -5. Issue nontechnical policy documents and statements.
> +5. Issue,
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 04:03:15AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> ==
> 4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
>
>4.1. Powers
>
> Together, the Developers may:
> 1. Appoint or recall the Project
Hi,
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 11:04:16AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Discussion" choice is unranked, then it is equal to all other unranked
> choices, if any -- no special consideration is given to the "Further
> Discussion" choice by the voting software).
If the software implements the quota a
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 11:09:12AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 12:59:13 +0200, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 04:03:15AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> __
> >>
>
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Here is the new version.
>
> This vote is being conducted in accordance with the Debian
> Constitution, Section A, Standard Resolution Procedure, to vote on a
> General Resolution to amend the constitution to disambiguate section
> 4.1.5.
Don't know how I missed th
Hi,
> what will happen if none of them receives a 3:1 majority, but the sum
> of the three does?
Sorry, wrong question.
This is a Condorcet vote; we don't sum anything.
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: The quote was selected randomly. Rea
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 11:37:12AM -0400, David Coe wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I apologize if this has already been discussed, and for not raising
> the question earlier.
> Because A, B, and C all make the same change to the first sentence of
> paragraph 5:
> > -
On 2003-10-13, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 04:03:15AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> __
>>
>> Proposal C: Clarifies status of non-technical documents. Creates
>> Foundation Documents class
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 12:59:13 +0200, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 04:03:15AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> __
>>
>> Proposal C: Clarifies status of non-technical documents. Creates
>> Founda
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 08:51:09 +0100, Jochen Voss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Hello,
> On Sun, Oct 12, 2003 at 11:36:12PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines
>> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>> [ ] Choice 1: Proposal A [ ] Choice 2: Proposal B [ ] Choi
cnhcgf
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I apologize if this has already been discussed, and for not raising
the question earlier.
Because A, B, and C all make the same change to the first sentence of
paragraph 5:
> -5. Issue nontechnical policy documents and statements.
> +5. Issue,
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 04:03:15AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> ==
> 4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
>
>4.1. Powers
>
> Together, the Developers may:
> 1. Appoint or recall the Project
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 04:03:15AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> __
>
> Proposal C: Clarifies status of non-technical documents. Creates
> Foundation Documents class which requires 3:1 majority to change and
> includes _only_
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 04:03:15AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> __
>
> Proposal C: Clarifies status of non-technical documents. Creates
> Foundation Documents class which requires 3:1 majority to change and
> includes _only_
Hi guys,
Many thanks to the people who provided feedback. Here is
another _draft_ which incorporates the suggested improvements.
manoj
##
Votes must be received by Tue, Oct 28 23:59:59 UTC 2003.
This vot
Hello,
On Sun, Oct 12, 2003 at 11:36:12PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> [ ] Choice 1: Proposal A
> [ ] Choice 2: Proposal B
> [ ] Choice 3: Proposal C
> [ ] Choice 4: No action
> [ ] Choice 5: Further Discuss
Hi guys,
Many thanks to the people who provided feedback. Here is
another _draft_ which incorporates the suggested improvements.
manoj
##
Votes must be received by Tue, Oct 28 23:59:59 UTC 2003.
This vot
On Sun, Oct 12, 2003 at 11:36:12PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Here is a draft ballot for the GR under discussion.
Thanks for circulating this draft. I have some editorial suggestions.
> ##
>
> Votes must be rec
by producing one of an OPPOSITE character; either by preserving
Look at our huge selection of
prescription medication that for pain relief,
depression, birth control, men's health, women's health, sleep aids,
and of course viagr@
Please No More
seized the handle of the door into the yard, and flu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Comments and feedback appreciated.
> In the brackets next to your preferred choice, place a 1. Place a 2 in
> the brackets next to your next choice. Do not enter a number smaller
> than 1 or larger than 2. You may rank
Hello,
On Sun, Oct 12, 2003 at 11:36:12PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> [ ] Choice 1: Proposal A
> [ ] Choice 2: Proposal B
> [ ] Choice 3: Proposal C
> [ ] Choice 4: No action
> [ ] Choice 5: Further Discuss
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 23:36:12 -0500
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
>
> Here is a draft ballot for the GR under discussion. There are
> 3 variants being proposed, and hence the ballot begins to look like
> the draft below. This is a draft, the first call for vote
77 matches
Mail list logo
