[Please follow Debian list policy and refrain from Cc:'ing me.]
On Sat, 27 Mar 2004, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> The voting process as I understand it forces me to vote for complete
> alternative proposals, not partial amendments.
Sortof. It requires the former, but you can use the sytem to ac
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Oh, sure. I'm just saying that there's no need to split this into
> multiple separate votes when people who don't like certain aspects of
> a proposal can merely suggest changes to the proposal and/or submit
> amendments for seconding. [Andrew can pick a
[Please follow Debian list policy and refrain from Cc:'ing me.]
On Sat, 27 Mar 2004, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> The voting process as I understand it forces me to vote for complete
> alternative proposals, not partial amendments.
Sortof. It requires the former, but you can use the sytem to ac
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Oh, sure. I'm just saying that there's no need to split this into
> multiple separate votes when people who don't like certain aspects of
> a proposal can merely suggest changes to the proposal and/or submit
> amendments for seconding. [Andrew can pick a
Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Nathanael Nerode ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040325 00:55]:
>> > Well, IMHO the old version is much nicer. The social contract _should_
>> > in my opinion have some nice, not too technical start. A promise is a
>> > very good start, and I'd like to keep that there.
>> You have a
Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Nathanael Nerode ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040327 23:10]:
>> How about "...entirely free software. This includes programs,
>> documentation, data, and any other works which are part of the Debian
>> system (except possibly license texts which are distributed only for
>> legal
Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040325 00:25]:
>> On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 21:07:27 +0100, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> said:
>>
>> > Ji, I'm not entirly happy with this proposal. One change is a large
>> > change: Is all in Debian Software or not? This of course
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 06:44:57PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> The current statement is:
>>
>> >> 1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
>> This states that everything in Debian is software, and futhermore that
>> everything in Debian is free.
>
> :%s/and furthermore
* Nathanael Nerode ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040327 23:10]:
> How about "...entirely free software. This includes programs,
> documentation, data, and any other works which are part of the Debian
> system (except possibly license texts which are distributed only for legal
> reasons). We provide the g
Andreas Barth wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I herby propose the following editorial changes to the SC, as
> alternative to Andrews proposal:
>
> | 1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
> |
> | We promise to keep the Debian system and all its components entirely
OK, while we're proposing changes
How
Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Nathanael Nerode ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040325 00:55]:
>> > Well, IMHO the old version is much nicer. The social contract _should_
>> > in my opinion have some nice, not too technical start. A promise is a
>> > very good start, and I'd like to keep that there.
>> You have a
Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Nathanael Nerode ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040327 23:10]:
>> How about "...entirely free software. This includes programs,
>> documentation, data, and any other works which are part of the Debian
>> system (except possibly license texts which are distributed only for
>> legal
Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040325 00:25]:
>> On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 21:07:27 +0100, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> said:
>>
>> > Ji, I'm not entirly happy with this proposal. One change is a large
>> > change: Is all in Debian Software or not? This of course
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 06:44:57PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> The current statement is:
>>
>> >> 1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
>> This states that everything in Debian is software, and futhermore that
>> everything in Debian is free.
>
> :%s/and furthermore
* Nathanael Nerode ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040327 23:10]:
> How about "...entirely free software. This includes programs,
> documentation, data, and any other works which are part of the Debian
> system (except possibly license texts which are distributed only for legal
> reasons). We provide the g
Andreas Barth wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I herby propose the following editorial changes to the SC, as
> alternative to Andrews proposal:
>
> | 1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
> |
> | We promise to keep the Debian system and all its components entirely
OK, while we're proposing changes
How
I keep getting a banner saying that i have won a
prize and to contact the prize department.
*
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential
and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity
to whom they are
On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 02:32:47PM +1100, Raelene Neander wrote:
> I went to a site to to download 3d wolfenstein for free, and up flashed a
> sign saying that I was the 50,000,000 visitor to the site, and also I had won
> a prize.
Ah, finally someone who might tell us what's going on.
Which si
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
At the time of writing, a few hours into the second week of
the vote, we have excellent participation in the vote, compared to
the last couple of years (and the number of rejected ballots is also
drastically lower).
I keep getting a banner saying that i have won a
prize and to contact the prize department.
*
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential
and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity
to whom they are
On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 02:32:47PM +1100, Raelene Neander wrote:
> I went to a site to to download 3d wolfenstein for free, and up flashed a sign
> saying that I was the 50,000,000 visitor to the site, and also I had won a prize.
Ah, finally someone who might tell us what's going on.
Which site
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
At the time of writing, a few hours into the second week of
the vote, we have excellent participation in the vote, compared to
the last couple of years (and the number of rejected ballots is also
drastically lower).
On Sat, 27 Mar 2004, Michael Banck wrote:
> I don't see a problem with asking Andrew whether he'd be willing to
> do modify his proposal, if he sees the merit of othere people's
> comments. If he does not like it, amendments can still be
> formulated, but there's no need to clutter the ballot witho
On Sat, 27 Mar 2004, Michael Banck wrote:
> I don't see a problem with asking Andrew whether he'd be willing to
> do modify his proposal, if he sees the merit of othere people's
> comments. If he does not like it, amendments can still be
> formulated, but there's no need to clutter the ballot witho
On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 10:57:17PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Mar 2004, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Of course there are interactions between, but there are several
> > discrete proposals in each of the two version of changes, and I
> > might like some and not others. I would hate
On 2004-03-26 18:01:41 + Dale C. Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have just plowed through a large wad of messages on this thread,
and the
only thing I have to say is that every everything I have read is self
justification or off topic crap.
I think there were some interesting points
On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 10:57:17PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Mar 2004, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Of course there are interactions between, but there are several
> > discrete proposals in each of the two version of changes, and I
> > might like some and not others. I would hate
On 2004-03-26 18:01:41 + Dale C. Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have just plowed through a large wad of messages on this thread,
and the
only thing I have to say is that every everything I have read is self
justification or off topic crap.
I think there were some interesting points fr
On Fri, 26 Mar 2004, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Of course there are interactions between, but there are several
> discrete proposals in each of the two version of changes, and I
> might like some and not others. I would hate to have to vote
> against the ones I like just because they are tied t
* Thomas Bushnell, BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040327 05:25]:
> I think we should handle changes to each section separately.
Sounds like a good idea.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C
30 matches
Mail list logo
