Anthony Towns wrote:
>What, exactly, is the point of removing non-free from the social contract,
>if we're not going to remove non-free entirely?
Hmm.
To remove non-free, but not contrib?
To add new restrictions on what can be in non-free? (Currently the only
requirement for a package in non-f
Anthony Towns wrote:
>What, exactly, is the point of removing non-free from the social contract,
>if we're not going to remove non-free entirely?
Hmm.
To remove non-free, but not contrib?
To add new restrictions on what can be in non-free? (Currently the only
requirement for a package in non-f
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 08:46:54PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 04:18:19AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 11:04:03PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > > The draft so far adds no such proscription for the admins
> > > (indeed, the whole point is
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 08:46:54PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 04:18:19AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 11:04:03PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > > The draft so far adds no such proscription for the admins
> > > (indeed, the whole point is
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 11:29:41PM +, Jochen Voss wrote:
> I tried to do something similar with my Debian voting system page at
>
> http://seehuhn.de/comp/vote.html
>
> Suggestions how this page could be improved are very welcome.
Yes! Let's move it to the the http://www.debian.org/vote
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 12:46:24PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> In other words, you approve of removing non-free, starting with some
> future releases of debian, but keeping non-free in our historical
> archives.
Yes. There are other ways we can provide support for third-party
software, but they a
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 11:29:41PM +, Jochen Voss wrote:
> I tried to do something similar with my Debian voting system page at
>
> http://seehuhn.de/comp/vote.html
>
> Suggestions how this page could be improved are very welcome.
Yes! Let's move it to the the http://www.debian.org/vote
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 12:46:24PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> In other words, you approve of removing non-free, starting with some
> future releases of debian, but keeping non-free in our historical
> archives.
Yes. There are other ways we can provide support for third-party
software, but they a
On Nov 3, 2003, at 01:22, Anthony Towns wrote:
Where's our origin? It's at "keep doing what we're doing now".
It's not quite at the origin; we have, as a project, not made any
formal decision to keep i386. If we were to vote on it, we would of, I
suppose under 4.1.5 of the Constitution.
(A
On Nov 2, 2003, at 17:09, Raul Miller wrote:
On the other hand, if there really four *orthogonal* issues, then maybe
there should be four ballots. It's only when the issues are
intertwined
that it makes sense to put them on the same ballot.
That's really all I'm saying.
On Nov 3, 2003, at 01:22, Anthony Towns wrote:
Where's our origin? It's at "keep doing what we're doing now".
It's not quite at the origin; we have, as a project, not made any
formal decision to keep i386. If we were to vote on it, we would of, I
suppose under 4.1.5 of the Constitution.
(Aside
> On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 01:58:25PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Huh? Do you mean replace the entire social contract with that, or
> > replace the text of the resolution with that?
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 11:49:54PM -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> Gosh. Have you been reading the thread
On Nov 2, 2003, at 17:09, Raul Miller wrote:
On the other hand, if there really four *orthogonal* issues, then maybe
there should be four ballots. It's only when the issues are
intertwined
that it makes sense to put them on the same ballot.
That's really all I'm saying.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
> On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 04:24:20PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > What, exactly, is the point of removing non-free from the social
> > contract, if we're not going to remove non-free entirely?
> >
> > Who, exactly, would vote for removing non-free from the social
> > contract, but not from the
> On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 01:58:25PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Huh? Do you mean replace the entire social contract with that, or
> > replace the text of the resolution with that?
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 11:49:54PM -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> Gosh. Have you been reading the thread
> On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 04:24:20PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > What, exactly, is the point of removing non-free from the social
> > contract, if we're not going to remove non-free entirely?
> >
> > Who, exactly, would vote for removing non-free from the social
> > contract, but not from the
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 04:24:20PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> What, exactly, is the point of removing non-free from the social
> contract, if we're not going to remove non-free entirely?
>
> Who, exactly, would vote for removing non-free from the social
> contract, but not from the archive?
I
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 04:24:20PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> What, exactly, is the point of removing non-free from the social
> contract, if we're not going to remove non-free entirely?
>
> Who, exactly, would vote for removing non-free from the social
> contract, but not from the archive?
I
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 01:01:47PM +0100, Peter Makholm wrote:
> I support Branden's proposal but I don't support the removal of
> non-free.
The social contract says that "we have created "contrib" and "non-free"
areas [for non-free software]. [...] We support its use, and we provide
infrastructu
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 01:01:47PM +0100, Peter Makholm wrote:
> I support Branden's proposal but I don't support the removal of
> non-free.
The social contract says that "we have created "contrib" and "non-free"
areas [for non-free software]. [...] We support its use, and we provide
infrastructu
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 04:18:19AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> 13) Clause 5 has been stricken entirely. *This amendment does NOT
> mandate the removal of the non-free section from anything,
> anywhere.* What it does do is withdraw our commitment to provide a
> "non-free s
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Nov 2, 2003, at 00:04, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
>> What do you mean, without a mandate? If the GR passes with a
>> landslide, woudn't that be a mandate?
>
> Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps the landslide just means people don't want
> to loudly
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 04:18:19AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> 13) Clause 5 has been stricken entirely. *This amendment does NOT
> mandate the removal of the non-free section from anything,
> anywhere.* What it does do is withdraw our commitment to provide a
> "non-free s
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Nov 2, 2003, at 00:04, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
>> What do you mean, without a mandate? If the GR passes with a
>> landslide, woudn't that be a mandate?
>
> Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps the landslide just means people don't want
> to loudly
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 01:58:25PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 05:17:55PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Consider the "amendment" (in name only),
> >Replace lines ^ through $ with the words, "Debian should continue to
> >produce a distribution."
>
> Huh? D
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 10:22:50PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Why do you think that voting for "Remove non-free" means that we wouldn't
> > continue to produce a distribution? Why do you think that ballot would be
> > treated differently to:
> > [ ] Remove non-free?
> > [ ] Don't
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 10:39:56PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > For reference, I wouldn't be. Either:
> > Further, non-free and contrib shall be removed from the archive,
> > and no longer supported by the Debian project.
> > or
> > Further, non-free and contrib shall continue to be
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 01:58:25PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 05:17:55PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Consider the "amendment" (in name only),
> >Replace lines ^ through $ with the words, "Debian should continue to
> >produce a distribution."
>
> Huh? D
28 matches
Mail list logo
