Re: Short descriptions of GR proposals on ballot

Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I solicit comments about the above from -vote in general, but I > would especially like to hear reactions from the proponent of each > proposal. Given that most of the GR proposals are written to work around our RM's conscience, it would be helpful to

Re: Short descriptions of GR proposals on ballot

On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 09:07:13PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > The ballot for the current proposals is shaping up to be rather > complicated. There are currently 5 proposals, plus at least one > in the making, plus "further discussion". > > In the interest of reducing the risk of somebody voti

Re: Amendment to the Constitution: Add a new foundation document

On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 07:26:46PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 12:51:23AM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote: > > I do not understand why this is an alternative to many existing > > proposals and would be on the same ballot. > > Does it fail to address the release issues created in t

Re: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003

I second Craig's proposal. - Ted On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 09:45:18AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote: > On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 08:41:35PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > > The Debian Project, > > > > affirming its committment to principles of freeness fo

Re: Short descriptions of GR proposals on ballot

On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 09:07:13PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > The ballot for the current proposals is shaping up to be rather > complicated. There are currently 5 proposals, plus at least one > in the making, plus "further discussion". > > In the interest of reducing the risk of somebody voti

Re: Short descriptions of GR proposals on ballot

On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 09:07:13PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > will give us a target to shoot at. I follow the enumeration of > proposals used on . > > [###] Choice A: Postpone changes until September 2004 [needs 3:1] > [###] Choice B: Postpone change

Re: Amendment to the Constitution: Add a new foundation document

On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 12:33:25AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > This is a major factor contributing to my belief that such a transition > *guide* should not be given the status of a foundation document. I Foundation documents lay foundations, and I don't see how a "transition" document lays a f

Re: Amendment to the Constitution: Add a new foundation document

On Mon, 3 May 2004 16:39:37 -0400, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 12:33:25AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: >> This is a major factor contributing to my belief that such a >> transition *guide* should not be given the status of a foundation >> document. I > Foun

Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge

* Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040503 19:55]: > On Mon, 3 May 2004 17:28:43 +0100, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > >I would ask all proposers and sponsors of resolutions to avoid > >calling for a vote before reaching consensus on the wording of a > >resolution. >

Re: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003

* Craig Sanders ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040429 02:10]: > i propose an amendment that deletes everything but clause 1 of this proposal, > so that the entire proposal now reads: > >that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within the >General Resolution "Editorial Amendments To The S

Summary: Proposal - Rescind GR 2004-003

Hi, Since Craig's proposal [1] seems to have gotten enough seconds [2], let me summarize it while giving a new concise title and a new thread. Excuse me if I am biased. Craig Sanders proposed the following resolution [1] (reformatted):

Re: Amendment to the Constitution: Add a new foundation document

Hi, I do not understand some of this. Clarification will be most appreciated. On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 01:15:33PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Hi, > > On consultation with the other sponsors, I have decided to > add a sunset clause to the proposed "Transition Guide", so that the >

Re: Amendment to the Constitution: Add a new foundation document

I second this proposed foundation document. On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 09:28:53PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Here is the current version > > manoj. > > I propose we adopt a foundation document that tries to provide > guidance and explanation for the transitions required whenever a >

Re: Amendment to the Constitution: Add a new foundation document

On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 12:51:23AM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote: > I do not understand why this is an alternative to many existing > proposals and would be on the same ballot. Does it fail to address the release issues created in the last GR? -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Amendment to the Constitution: Add a new foundation document

Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 03 May 2004 00:26:49 -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > I think this draft is very good, and I am most pleased to second it. > > So I second this proposed foundation document. > > Unfortunately, I can't verify the

Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge

"Francesco P. Lovergine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Firmware is a component of hardware. Also processors uses microcode to > work. So, do we are wrong in calling that 'hardware'? Real firmware is as you say. But "loaded on demand" is not a component of hardware any longer. > Again, the sepa

Re: Amendment to the Constitution: Add a new foundation document

Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 03 May 2004 00:26:49 -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > I think this draft is very good, and I am most pleased to second it. > > So I second this proposed foundation document. > > Unfortunately, I can't verify the

Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge

"Francesco P. Lovergine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Firmware is a component of hardware. Also processors uses microcode to > work. So, do we are wrong in calling that 'hardware'? Real firmware is as you say. But "loaded on demand" is not a component of hardware any longer. > Again, the sepa

Re: Amendment to the Constitution: Add a new foundation document

On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 12:51:23AM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote: > I do not understand why this is an alternative to many existing > proposals and would be on the same ballot. Does it fail to address the release issues created in the last GR? -- Raul

Re: Amendment to the Constitution: Add a new foundation document

I second this proposed foundation document. On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 09:28:53PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Here is the current version > > manoj. > > I propose we adopt a foundation document that tries to provide > guidance and explanation for the transitions required whenever a >

Re: Amendment to the Constitution: Add a new foundation document

Hi, I do not understand some of this. Clarification will be most appreciated. On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 01:15:33PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Hi, > > On consultation with the other sponsors, I have decided to > add a sunset clause to the proposed "Transition Guide", so that the >

Summary: Proposal - Rescind GR 2004-003

Hi, Since Craig's proposal [1] seems to have gotten enough seconds [2], let me summarize it while giving a new concise title and a new thread. Excuse me if I am biased. Craig Sanders proposed the following resolution [1] (reformatted):

Re: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003

* Craig Sanders ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040429 02:10]: > i propose an amendment that deletes everything but clause 1 of this proposal, > so that the entire proposal now reads: > >that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within the >General Resolution "Editorial Amendments To The S

Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge

* Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040503 19:55]: > On Mon, 3 May 2004 17:28:43 +0100, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > >I would ask all proposers and sponsors of resolutions to avoid > >calling for a vote before reaching consensus on the wording of a > >resolution. >

Re: Amendment to the Constitution: Add a new foundation document

On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 12:33:25AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > This is a major factor contributing to my belief that such a transition > *guide* should not be given the status of a foundation document. I Foundation documents lay foundations, and I don't see how a "transition" document lays a f

Re: Amendment to the Constitution: Add a new foundation document

On Mon, 3 May 2004 16:39:37 -0400, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 12:33:25AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: >> This is a major factor contributing to my belief that such a >> transition *guide* should not be given the status of a foundation >> document. I > Foun

Re: Short descriptions of GR proposals on ballot

On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 09:07:13PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > will give us a target to shoot at. I follow the enumeration of > proposals used on . > > [###] Choice A: Postpone changes until September 2004 [needs 3:1] > [###] Choice B: Postpone change

Short descriptions of GR proposals on ballot

The ballot for the current proposals is shaping up to be rather complicated. There are currently 5 proposals, plus at least one in the making, plus "further discussion". In the interest of reducing the risk of somebody voting for something they did not intend to, simply out of confusion, I (meta)p

Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge

On Mon, 3 May 2004 17:28:43 +0100, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > * Since we are in something of a hurry, and there will be time to >clarify the situation at more length later, IMO any grandfather >resolution authorising the release of sarge should be as short as >possible.

Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge

Well, there's certainly a lot of hot air. And the situation is rather unfortunate. It seems to me that: * The social contract as amended is unambiguous, and prevents the release of sarge as-is. Therefore: * The Developers must decide whether to waive or amend the social contract. If n

Re: Amendment to the Constitution: Add a new foundation document

Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I Second it. > Here is the current version > > manoj. > > I propose we adopt a foundation document that tries to provide > guidance and explanation for the transitions required whenever a > change occurs in a foundation document like the soci

Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge

On Mon, 3 May 2004 17:28:43 +0100, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > * Since we are in something of a hurry, and there will be time to >clarify the situation at more length later, IMO any grandfather >resolution authorising the release of sarge should be as short as >possible.

Re: Amendment to the Constitution: Add a new foundation document

I second the attached GR. (but please s/judgemen\./judgement./ before the vote :) ) Daniel On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 09:28:53PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say: > Here is the current version > > manoj. > > I propose we adopt a foundation document that tri

Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge

Well, there's certainly a lot of hot air. And the situation is rather unfortunate. It seems to me that: * The social contract as amended is unambiguous, and prevents the release of sarge as-is. Therefore: * The Developers must decide whether to waive or amend the social contract. If n

Earn money quickly

Title: Turnkey chairwomen dora obvious pigment nicaragua cellular meteoritic floppy crossbow farmhouse adjust deflector hilbert typescript bradley aviatrix armenia tonight bullfrog priggish creedal fling vend polyhedral azimuthal farfetched apocrypha alan cyclic tempestuous

Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge

On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 06:45:11PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > (The reason I say *old or new* is because the old one applied the DFSG > to all software, and labelling a piece of software "firmware" doesn't > make it any less software, for the same reason that calling a dog's > tail a "l

Re: Amendment to the Constitution: Add a new foundation document

Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I Second it. > Here is the current version > > manoj. > > I propose we adopt a foundation document that tries to provide > guidance and explanation for the transitions required whenever a > change occurs in a foundation document like the soci

Re: Amendment to the Constitution: Add a new foundation document

On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 08:49:08AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On 03 May 2004 00:26:49 -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > I think this draft is very good, and I am most pleased to second it. > > So I second this proposed foundation document. > > Unfortunately,

Re: Amendment to the Constitution: Add a new foundation document

I second the attached GR. (but please s/judgemen\./judgement./ before the vote :) ) Daniel On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 09:28:53PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say: > Here is the current version > > manoj. > > I propose we adopt a foundation document that tri

Re: Amendment to the Constitution: Add a new foundation document

On 03 May 2004 00:26:49 -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > I think this draft is very good, and I am most pleased to second it. > So I second this proposed foundation document. Unfortunately, I can't verify the signature on this email. Is it just a failing on my end

Earn money quickly

Title: Turnkey chairwomen dora obvious pigment nicaragua cellular meteoritic floppy crossbow farmhouse adjust deflector hilbert typescript bradley aviatrix armenia tonight bullfrog priggish creedal fling vend polyhedral azimuthal farfetched apocrypha alan cyclic tempestuous

Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge

On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 06:45:11PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > (The reason I say *old or new* is because the old one applied the DFSG > to all software, and labelling a piece of software "firmware" doesn't > make it any less software, for the same reason that calling a dog's > tail a "l

Re: Amendment to the Constitution: Add a new foundation document

On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 08:49:08AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On 03 May 2004 00:26:49 -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > I think this draft is very good, and I am most pleased to second it. > > So I second this proposed foundation document. > > Unfortunately,

Re: Amendment to the Constitution: Add a new foundation document

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Here is the current version This one looks good; I'll second it. > I propose we adopt a foundation document that tries to provide > guidance and explanation for the transitions required whenever a >

Re: Amendment to the Constitution: Add a new foundation document

On 03 May 2004 00:26:49 -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > I think this draft is very good, and I am most pleased to second it. > So I second this proposed foundation document. Unfortunately, I can't verify the signature on this email. Is it just a failing on my end

Re: Amendment to the Constitution: Add a new foundation document

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Here is the current version This one looks good; I'll second it. > I propose we adopt a foundation document that tries to provide > guidance and explanation for the transitions required whenever a >

conner

Bentley, Govenment don't want me to sell UndergroundCD !Check Your spouse and staff Investigate Your Own CREDIT-HISTORY hacking someone PC! Disappear in your city bannedcd2004 http://www.9004hosting.com/cd/ wylie,the present translation.

Re: Amendment to the Constitution: Add a new foundation document

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I think this draft is very good, and I am most pleased to second it. So I second this proposed foundation document. Excellent work, Manoj! Thomas Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Here is the current version > > manoj. > >

Re: Amendment to the Constitution: Add a new foundation document

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I think this draft is very good, and I am most pleased to second it. So I second this proposed foundation document. Excellent work, Manoj! Thomas Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Here is the current version > > manoj. > >

conner

Bentley, Govenment don't want me to sell UndergroundCD !Check Your spouse and staff Investigate Your Own CREDIT-HISTORY hacking someone PC! Disappear in your city bannedcd2004 http://www.9004hosting.com/cd/ wylie,the present translation.

Re: Amendment to the Constitution: Add a new foundation document

On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 12:33:25AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > Here's a quick stab at the latter: > > Unless otherwise specified in the resolution, any resolution which > modifies the Social Contract or the DFSG shall take effect 6 months > after ratification, and any stable versions of t

Re: Amendment to the Constitution: Add a new foundation document

On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 09:03:40PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Sun, 2 May 2004 23:17:07 +0200, Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 01:15:33PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > >> On consultation with the other sponsors, I have decided to add a > >> sunset cl