On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 04:44:32AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> That's because it doesn't make any sense. Debian's ideology has always
> been that pragmatism is more important than ideology: that's why we've
> said "hey, look, we strongly believe in free software, but you know,
> if you don't that
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 12:15:18AM -0600, Graham Wilson wrote:
> But wait: doesn't Debian currently distribute non-free software? And
> don't we currently promise to remain "100% free software"? How do you
> square that?
Easily: the only thing that trumps the social contract is the social
contract
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 03:42:22PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 01:58:25PM +1000, Anthony Towns 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
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 04:19:25PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > If this is the case, the proposal should be so amended. There
> > > would be no problem running two votes, either in sequence, or
> > > concurrently.
>
> On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 03:35:15PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 12:22:03AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > What I have trouble understanding is why you might classify that sort of
> > approach as insincere. It's not as if we have some shortage of people
> > wanting to talk about things on our lists. Nor is it the case that
> > ther
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 04:00:28PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> If someone ranked "further discussion" above all other options, I'd
> agree that that was probably an insincere vote.
Why so? I'm not saying I disagree, but I'd like to hear someone else's
thoughts on the phenomenon. I'm interested i
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 04:33:04AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> 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.
>
> Branden's proposal has the first clause read:
>
> Debian Will Remain 100% Fr
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 04:33:04AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> 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.
>
> Branden's proposal has the first clause read:
>
> Debian Will Remain 100% Fr
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 04:44:32AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> That's because it doesn't make any sense. Debian's ideology has always
> been that pragmatism is more important than ideology: that's why we've
> said "hey, look, we strongly believe in free software, but you know,
> if you don't that
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 04:19:25PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > If this is the case, the proposal should be so amended. There
> > > would be no problem running two votes, either in sequence, or
> > > concurrently.
>
> On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 03:35:15PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 04:00:28PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> If someone ranked "further discussion" above all other options, I'd
> agree that that was probably an insincere vote.
Why so? I'm not saying I disagree, but I'd like to hear someone else's
thoughts on the phenomenon. I'm interested i
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 03:33:29PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 02:46:24AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 03:09:47 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > said:
> > > Both Mr. DeRobertis and I interpreted the text quoted above as a
> > >
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 03:33:29PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 02:46:24AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 03:09:47 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > > Both Mr. DeRobertis and I interpreted the text quoted above as a
> > > perso
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 01:16:11AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> The social contract says that "we have created "contrib" and "non-free"
> areas [for non-free software]. [...] We support its use, and we provide
> infrastructure [this software]". Presumably you don't disagree with that,
> or think i
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 09:32:51AM +0100, Peter Makholm wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
> > Why then would you want to remove that text? The only reason that I can
> > see is so that that support can be dropped by some process other than
> > the formation of a consensus by supermajority.
> The you
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.
Branden's proposal has the first clause read:
Debian Will Remain 100% Free
We promise to preserve your right to freely use, modify and
> > If this is the case, the proposal should be so amended. There
> > would be no problem running two votes, either in sequence, or
> > concurrently.
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 03:35:15PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I'll give it very serious consideration, but first I would like some
> g
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 01:16:11AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> The social contract says that "we have created "contrib" and "non-free"
> areas [for non-free software]. [...] We support its use, and we provide
> infrastructure [this software]". Presumably you don't disagree with that,
> or think 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.
Branden's proposal has the first clause read:
Debian Will Remain 100% Free
We promise to preserve your right to freely use, modify and
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 11:11:35AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
[rationale 13 snipped]
> You might want to consider putting this up some paces. Having such a
> crucial part of your RfD at position 13) of your rationale might get it
> overlooked.
Yeah. The rationales are numbered in the order I t
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 03:33:29PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> In the recent "Disambiguation of 4.1.5" vote, for instance, while I
> haven't look at the tally sheet yet to see if anyone actually did, I
> would have to wonder if anyone who ranked "further discussion" above any
> of the other op
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 Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 09:32:51AM +0100, Peter Makholm wrote:
> Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Why then would you want to remove that text? The only reason that I can
> > see is so that that support can be dropped by some process other than
> > the formation of a consensus by superm
> > If this is the case, the proposal should be so amended. There
> > would be no problem running two votes, either in sequence, or
> > concurrently.
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 03:35:15PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I'll give it very serious consideration, but first I would like some
> g
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 12:28:22PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
[snip rationale 13]
> This by itself does not matter as much as you think it does,
> since the voter has no choice here.
Well, then, how much *does* it matter? Why did you include rationale
statements in the text of the bal
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 11:11:35AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
[rationale 13 snipped]
> You might want to consider putting this up some paces. Having such a
> crucial part of your RfD at position 13) of your rationale might get it
> overlooked.
Yeah. The rationales are numbered in the order I t
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 03:33:29PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> In the recent "Disambiguation of 4.1.5" vote, for instance, while I
> haven't look at the tally sheet yet to see if anyone actually did, I
> would have to wonder if anyone who ranked "further discussion" above any
> of the other op
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 01:58:25PM +1000, Anthony Towns 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 chan
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 Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 01:09:43PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> I disagree with this summary. It's possible that Branden might disagree
> (http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200311/msg00099.html).
That's overstating it a little bit. That message was just my way of
being concilia
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 12:19:00PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 08:54:32 -0500, Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> said:
> > Indeed, from his comments, I think even the Branden might be happy
> > with the two separated, as long as they are on two different
> > ballots
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 02:46:24AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 03:09:47 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Both Mr. DeRobertis and I interpreted the text quoted above as a
> > personal attack. How else is one to interpret "you are really
> > contributing
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 12:28:22PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
[snip rationale 13]
> This by itself does not matter as much as you think it does,
> since the voter has no choice here.
Well, then, how much *does* it matter? Why did you include rationale
statements in the text of the bal
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 01:58:25PM +1000, Anthony Towns 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 chan
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 01:09:43PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> I disagree with this summary. It's possible that Branden might disagree
> (http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200311/msg00099.html).
That's overstating it a little bit. That message was just my way of
being concilia
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 12:19:00PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 08:54:32 -0500, Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Indeed, from his comments, I think even the Branden might be happy
> > with the two separated, as long as they are on two different
> > ballots.
>
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 02:46:24AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 03:09:47 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Both Mr. DeRobertis and I interpreted the text quoted above as a
> > personal attack. How else is one to interpret "you are really
> > contributing
Anthony Towns writes:
> Why then would you want to remove that text? The only reason that I can
> see is so that that support can be dropped by some process other than
> the formation of a consensus by supermajority.
The you skiped over the part about ideology (which I belive the SC
should descr
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 12:23:06AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> 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 w
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Why then would you want to remove that text? The only reason that I can
> see is so that that support can be dropped by some process other than
> the formation of a consensus by supermajority.
The you skiped over the part about ideology (which I belive
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 12:23:06AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> 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 w
41 matches
Mail list logo
