On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 01:11:27PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> This would eliminate confusion such as that from Ted Ts'o in
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200402/msg00135.html.
> It also fits the English-language meaning better.
The reason they are called "amendments"
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 10:50:15AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> I was trying to see what's needed and how to do it for non-free.org and
> have a discussion about this on this list a while ago, but the response
> was anything but enthusiastic. Seems the 'keep non-free' people don't
> want to talk a
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 12:29:39PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 11:47:45AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > It is not that we don't want it to happen, by all way, implement it, and
> > if it fullfills all its promise, i would be glad to move my non-free
> > packages to it, but
* Michael Banck ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040226 12:40]:
> And the fact whether people think it is worth the effort to
> differentiate between ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/non-free and
> ftp.non-free.org should be left to the person voting. It is highly
> subjective and will *never* be solved by discussio
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 11:23:37AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Sounds like a henn-and-egg problem to me:
> 1. as long as non-fre is distributed through debian.org nobody
> will build nonfree.org.
> 2. as long as nonfree.org isn't functional, debian.org cannot
> (should not?) stop distr
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 2004-02-26 06:36:57 + Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>> Yes, I did get that from the web page. Coomon sense seems to
>> indicate that we can either cease active support of the non-free
>> section (editing the SC as needed), or we ca
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 07:00:36PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 01:48:48AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > I propose that the Debian project resolve that:
> >
> > ==
> > Acknowledging that some of our use
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 12:42:04PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Well, like said, if there is a viable non-free, with all the
> guarantees that it will stay and be well maintained, i will have no
> objections in using it. It should provide equivalent functionality to
> debian/non-free though, includi
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 10:50:15AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> I was trying to see what's needed and how to do it for non-free.org and
> have a discussion about this on this list a while ago, but the response
> was anything but enthusiastic. Seems the 'keep non-free' people don't
> want to talk a
This would eliminate confusion such as that from Ted Ts'o in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200402/msg00135.html.
It also fits the English-language meaning better.
--
Nathanael Nerode
US citizens: if you're considering voting for Bush, look at these first:
http://www.misl
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 11:44:25 +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> It delays the vote in order to add a second "status quo" option to
> the ballot.
In what way exactly is the default option not the status quo?
manoj
--
Sometimes even to live is an act of courage. Seneca
Man
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 11:44:25 +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Modifying the amendment to delete part or all of the original
> proposal does not seem to be one of the Secretary's powers, or do
> you consider wording just a matter of procedure? If the amendment
> wishes to delete things, *
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 01:11:27PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode
proposed we modify the debian constitution, replacing the word "amendment"
with "alternative".
> It also fits the English-language meaning better.
Indeed?
Then again, I don't see it listed in places such as
http://www.senate.gov/pagel
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
This would eliminate confusion such as that from Ted Ts'o in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200402/msg00135.html.
It also fits the English-language meaning better.
Sounds good to me. Care to do the sed job on the constitution and write
up the prop
On 2004-02-26 18:11:27 + Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
It also fits the English-language meaning better.
How? We can have amendments that don't delete the entire text of a
proposal. However, if I read A.3 right, there does seem to be a
limitation in the current vote system tha
On 2004-02-26 19:22:41 + Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Sounds good to me. Care to do the sed job on the constitution and
write up
the proposal for seconds?
Please don't. Amendments need not delete the entire proposal text. It
would make "small bugfix" amendments a lot longer.
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 13:11:27 -0500, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> This would eliminate confusion such as that from Ted Ts'o in
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200402/msg00135.html.
> It also fits the English-language meaning better.
What if the amen
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 20:16:39 +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On 2004-02-26 18:11:27 + Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> It also fits the English-language meaning better.
> How? We can have amendments that don't delete the entire text of a
> proposal. However, if I r
On 2004-02-26 20:48:25 + Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
[...] Is the HOWTO the
Secretary's interpretation/decision?
Unfortunately, no. The HOWTO has not been updated to keep up
with the recent changes in the constitution.
Which package gets bug reports about that? www.deb
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 21:54:53 +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Anyway, will you tell us what your interpretation is, for the
> abstract general case? Roughly what is the range of valid forms a
> caller could use?
Related issues should be on the same ballot, orthogonal issues
sho
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 02:43:03PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 13:11:27 -0500, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > This would eliminate confusion such as that from Ted Ts'o in
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200402/msg00135.html.
>
>
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 01:11:27PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> This would eliminate confusion such as that from Ted Ts'o in
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200402/msg00135.html.
> It also fits the English-language meaning better.
The reason they are called "amendments"
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 02:43:03PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 13:11:27 -0500, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> said:
>
> > This would eliminate confusion such as that from Ted Ts'o in
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200402/msg00135.html.
>
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 21:54:53 +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Anyway, will you tell us what your interpretation is, for the
> abstract general case? Roughly what is the range of valid forms a
> caller could use?
Related issues should be on the same ballot, orthogonal issues
sho
On 2004-02-26 20:48:25 + Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
[...] Is the HOWTO the
Secretary's interpretation/decision?
Unfortunately, no. The HOWTO has not been updated to keep up
with the recent changes in the constitution.
Which package gets bug reports about that? ww
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 20:16:39 +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On 2004-02-26 18:11:27 + Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> It also fits the English-language meaning better.
> How? We can have amendments that don't delete the entire text of a
> proposal. However, if I r
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 13:11:27 -0500, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> This would eliminate confusion such as that from Ted Ts'o in
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200402/msg00135.html.
> It also fits the English-language meaning better.
What if the amen
On 2004-02-26 19:22:41 + Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Sounds good to me. Care to do the sed job on the constitution and
write up
the proposal for seconds?
Please don't. Amendments need not delete the entire proposal text. It
would make "small bugfix" amendments a lot longe
On 2004-02-26 18:11:27 + Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
It also fits the English-language meaning better.
How? We can have amendments that don't delete the entire text of a
proposal. However, if I read A.3 right, there does seem to be a
limitation in the current vote system
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
This would eliminate confusion such as that from Ted Ts'o in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200402/msg00135.html.
It also fits the English-language meaning better.
Sounds good to me. Care to do the sed job on the constitution and write
up the
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 01:11:27PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode
proposed we modify the debian constitution, replacing the word "amendment"
with "alternative".
> It also fits the English-language meaning better.
Indeed?
Then again, I don't see it listed in places such as
http://www.senate.gov/page
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 11:44:25 +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Modifying the amendment to delete part or all of the original
> proposal does not seem to be one of the Secretary's powers, or do
> you consider wording just a matter of procedure? If the amendment
> wishes to delete things, *
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 11:44:25 +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> It delays the vote in order to add a second "status quo" option to
> the ballot.
In what way exactly is the default option not the status quo?
manoj
--
Sometimes even to live is an act of courage. Seneca
Man
This would eliminate confusion such as that from Ted Ts'o in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200402/msg00135.html.
It also fits the English-language meaning better.
--
Nathanael Nerode
US citizens: if you're considering voting for Bush, look at these first:
http://www.misl
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 10:50:15AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> I was trying to see what's needed and how to do it for non-free.org and
> have a discussion about this on this list a while ago, but the response
> was anything but enthusiastic. Seems the 'keep non-free' people don't
> want to talk a
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 12:42:04PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Well, like said, if there is a viable non-free, with all the
> guarantees that it will stay and be well maintained, i will have no
> objections in using it. It should provide equivalent functionality to
> debian/non-free though, includi
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 07:00:36PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 01:48:48AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > I propose that the Debian project resolve that:
> >
> > ==
> > Acknowledging that some of our use
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 2004-02-26 06:36:57 + Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>> Yes, I did get that from the web page. Coomon sense seems to
>> indicate that we can either cease active support of the non-free
>> section (editing the SC as needed), or we ca
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 11:23:37AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Sounds like a henn-and-egg problem to me:
> 1. as long as non-fre is distributed through debian.org nobody
> will build nonfree.org.
> 2. as long as nonfree.org isn't functional, debian.org cannot
> (should not?) stop distr
* Michael Banck ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040226 12:40]:
> And the fact whether people think it is worth the effort to
> differentiate between ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/non-free and
> ftp.non-free.org should be left to the person voting. It is highly
> subjective and will *never* be solved by discussio
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 12:29:39PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 11:47:45AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > It is not that we don't want it to happen, by all way, implement it, and
> > if it fullfills all its promise, i would be glad to move my non-free
> > packages to it, but
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 10:50:15AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> I was trying to see what's needed and how to do it for non-free.org and
> have a discussion about this on this list a while ago, but the response
> was anything but enthusiastic. Seems the 'keep non-free' people don't
> want to talk a
On 2004-02-26 06:36:57 + Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Yes, I did get that from the web page. Coomon sense seems to
indicate that we can either cease active support of the non-free
section (editing the SC as needed), or we can reaffirm our commitment
to non-free and co
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 11:47:45AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> It is not that we don't want it to happen, by all way, implement it, and
> if it fullfills all its promise, i would be glad to move my non-free
> packages to it, but i will not use my time and energy to make it happen,
> as i have less
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 10:50:15AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 10:34:23AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040226 10:25]:
> > > Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > > * Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040226 08:55]:
> > > > > We cannot includ
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 11:23:37AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> > > We cannot include it in Debian anyway, since it is non-free. If Debian
> > > stops distributing it but people will build ftp.non-free.org, what's
> > > the different from the users' perspective? A new apt-l
Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040226 10:25]:
> > Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > * Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040226 08:55]:
> > > > We cannot include it in Debian anyway, since it is non-free. If Debian
> > > > stops distributing it but people will build ftp.non
Sven Luther wrote:
> > We cannot include it in Debian anyway, since it is non-free. If Debian
> > stops distributing it but people will build ftp.non-free.org, what's
> > the different from the users' perspective? A new apt-line. Oh horror...
>
> Because most probably, nobody will build ftp.non
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 11:25:14AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> However, in this case, the proposal should say something like: "The
> non-free software that was distributed via Debians archive is now
> moved to ..., and the clause 5 of the SC is dropped."
Andrew made it quite clear that he thinks
* Michael Banck ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040226 11:10]:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 10:34:02AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Because most probably, nobody will build ftp.non-free.org. I would be
> > happy to be proven the contrary though, and once such an alternative
> > structure is up, and works in an
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 10:34:02AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Because most probably, nobody will build ftp.non-free.org. I would be
> happy to be proven the contrary though, and once such an alternative
> structure is up, and works in an acceptable way, then i would see no
> opposition to move non
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 08:19:17AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Matt Pavlovich wrote:
> > I have personally negotiated with several hardware vendors including
> > Matrox, Nvidia, and Compaq about making drivers and other support
> > software 100% DFSG compliant. The success has been mixed, but i
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 10:34:23AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040226 10:25]:
> > Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > * Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040226 08:55]:
> > > > We cannot include it in Debian anyway, since it is non-free. If Debian
> > > > stops dis
On 2004-02-26 06:36:57 + Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Yes, I did get that from the web page. Coomon sense seems to
indicate that we can either cease active support of the non-free
section (editing the SC as needed), or we can reaffirm our commitment
to non-free and cont
* Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040226 10:25]:
> Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040226 08:55]:
> > > We cannot include it in Debian anyway, since it is non-free. If Debian
> > > stops distributing it but people will build ftp.non-free.org, what's
> > > the dif
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 11:47:45AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> It is not that we don't want it to happen, by all way, implement it, and
> if it fullfills all its promise, i would be glad to move my non-free
> packages to it, but i will not use my time and energy to make it happen,
> as i have less
Martin Schulze wrote:
Andreas Barth wrote:
* Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040226 08:55]:
We cannot include it in Debian anyway, since it is non-free. If Debian
stops distributing it but people will build ftp.non-free.org, what's
the different from the users' perspective? A new apt-l
Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040226 08:55]:
> > We cannot include it in Debian anyway, since it is non-free. If Debian
> > stops distributing it but people will build ftp.non-free.org, what's
> > the different from the users' perspective? A new apt-line. Oh horror
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 10:50:15AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 10:34:23AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040226 10:25]:
> > > Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > > * Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040226 08:55]:
> > > > > We cannot includ
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 11:23:37AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> > > We cannot include it in Debian anyway, since it is non-free. If Debian
> > > stops distributing it but people will build ftp.non-free.org, what's
> > > the different from the users' perspective? A new apt-l
Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040226 10:25]:
> > Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > * Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040226 08:55]:
> > > > We cannot include it in Debian anyway, since it is non-free. If Debian
> > > > stops distributing it but people will build ftp.non
Sven Luther wrote:
> > We cannot include it in Debian anyway, since it is non-free. If Debian
> > stops distributing it but people will build ftp.non-free.org, what's
> > the different from the users' perspective? A new apt-line. Oh horror...
>
> Because most probably, nobody will build ftp.non
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 11:25:14AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> However, in this case, the proposal should say something like: "The
> non-free software that was distributed via Debians archive is now
> moved to ..., and the clause 5 of the SC is dropped."
Andrew made it quite clear that he thinks
* Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040226 08:55]:
> We cannot include it in Debian anyway, since it is non-free. If Debian
> stops distributing it but people will build ftp.non-free.org, what's
> the different from the users' perspective? A new apt-line. Oh horror...
What do we gain from rep
* Michael Banck ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040226 11:10]:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 10:34:02AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Because most probably, nobody will build ftp.non-free.org. I would be
> > happy to be proven the contrary though, and once such an alternative
> > structure is up, and works in an
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 10:34:02AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Because most probably, nobody will build ftp.non-free.org. I would be
> happy to be proven the contrary though, and once such an alternative
> structure is up, and works in an acceptable way, then i would see no
> opposition to move non
On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 01:48:48AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> I propose that the Debian project resolve that:
>
> ==
> Acknowledging that some of our users continue to require the use of
> programs that don't conform to the Deb
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 08:19:17AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Matt Pavlovich wrote:
> > I have personally negotiated with several hardware vendors including
> > Matrox, Nvidia, and Compaq about making drivers and other support
> > software 100% DFSG compliant. The success has been mixed, but i
On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 02:14:40PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> Umm this is very confusing. Are we expected to cast votes for
> both the amendment and the general resolution at the same time?
Yes. The ballot will look like:
[ ] Remove non-free
[ ] Keep non-free
[
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 10:34:23AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040226 10:25]:
> > Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > * Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040226 08:55]:
> > > > We cannot include it in Debian anyway, since it is non-free. If Debian
> > > > stops dis
Matt Pavlovich wrote:
> I have personally negotiated with several hardware vendors including
> Matrox, Nvidia, and Compaq about making drivers and other support
> software 100% DFSG compliant. The success has been mixed, but in every
> case, they are beginning to "see the light".
I'm very glad
* Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040226 10:25]:
> Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040226 08:55]:
> > > We cannot include it in Debian anyway, since it is non-free. If Debian
> > > stops distributing it but people will build ftp.non-free.org, what's
> > > the dif
Martin Schulze wrote:
Andreas Barth wrote:
* Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040226 08:55]:
We cannot include it in Debian anyway, since it is non-free. If Debian
stops distributing it but people will build ftp.non-free.org, what's
the different from the users' perspective? A new apt-line.
Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040226 08:55]:
> > We cannot include it in Debian anyway, since it is non-free. If Debian
> > stops distributing it but people will build ftp.non-free.org, what's
> > the different from the users' perspective? A new apt-line. Oh horror
On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 12:46:39PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-02-25 11:42:51 + Anthony Towns
> wrote:
> >Eh? My proposed resolution replaces the entirety of Andrew's proposed
> >resolution. What the hell are you talking about?
> As written, your proposed amendment does no such thing.
Uh
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 22:29:12 +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On 2004-02-25 21:02:20 + Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> The way I see it, these are mutually exclusive proposals.
> Are you basing that on anything you put on
> http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_002
* Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040226 08:55]:
> We cannot include it in Debian anyway, since it is non-free. If Debian
> stops distributing it but people will build ftp.non-free.org, what's
> the different from the users' perspective? A new apt-line. Oh horror...
What do we gain from rep
On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 01:48:48AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> I propose that the Debian project resolve that:
>
> ==
> Acknowledging that some of our users continue to require the use of
> programs that don't conform to the Deb
78 matches
Mail list logo
