On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 01:34:20PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 06:52:37PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > Any textual basis for that claim?
> > Constitution, 4.1.5.3 "A Foundation Document requires a 3:1 majority
> > for its supersession."
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 04:59
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 01:34:20PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 06:52:37PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Any textual basis for that claim?
> Constitution, 4.1.5.3 "A Foundation Document requires a 3:1 majority
> for its supersession."
Yes, and? We could make the logo requ
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 08:19:10PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Graham Wilson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040524 20:10]:
> > On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 10:12:52AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > * Debian Project Secretary ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040523 23:55]:
> > > > I do not think we can over rid
* Graham Wilson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040524 20:10]:
> On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 10:12:52AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Debian Project Secretary ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040523 23:55]:
> > > I do not think we can over ride the constitution, and other
> > > foundation documents, with a simple posi
* Anthony Towns ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040524 19:55]:
> It's interesting, though, that not only did no one else propose a GR to
> support that policy at the time, but you didn't propose a GR to set the
> policy you believed was correct either -- even though you opposed the
> decision, apparently thou
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 10:09:17AM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> Graham Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> > By program I mean everything that we formerly required to be distributed
> > under the DFSG,
>
> Huh? That's not a definition, especially since all this debate is about
> whether our pre
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 10:12:52AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Debian Project Secretary ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040523 23:55]:
> > I do not think we can over ride the constitution, and other
> > foundation documents, with a simple position statement; so I would
> > not think a simple positio
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 03:57:19PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > I believe Anthony Towns has said that he now believes his earlier release
> > > policy to be in error.
> > No. It was an error to try to set the release policy myself, rather than
> > tangling it up in the bureaucracy of getting
* Tore Anderson
> I'm reluctant to vote for a resolution that acknowledges that the
> changes made to the social contract were anything but editorial.
* Manoj Srivastava
> As an author of one of these proposals, and as an individual
> who still holds that the changes made in GR 2004
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 03:57:19PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Told you so (way back when you first introduced the policy of
> deliberately including non-free stuff in sarge). You reap what you
> sow.
That's not a fair statement.
In this context, you had at least as much to do with the "sowin
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 06:52:37PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Any textual basis for that claim?
Constitution, 4.1.5.3 "A Foundation Document requires a 3:1 majority
for its supersession."
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Conta
On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 03:03:27PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 03:55:48PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > The policy decision's at http://people.debian.org/~ajt/sarge_rc_policy.txt:
> > > ] Code in main and contrib must meet the DFSG, both in .debs and
> > > ] in the sourc
On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 05:44:06PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 12:33:58AM +0300, Riku Voipio wrote:
> > Short and sweet and lacks political hubbub. Just decide that we
> > shouldn't have to change release policy 6 months after the release
> > was supposed to happen. Why soul
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 10:09:17AM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
> > By program I mean everything that we formerly required to be distributed
> > under the DFSG,
> Huh? That's not a definition, especially since all this debate is about
> whether our previous formal requirements where different to our
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 05:13:38PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 11:16:36PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > I believe Anthony Towns has said that he now believes his earlier release
> > policy to be in error.
>
> No. It was an error to try to set the release policy myself, ra
Graham Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 04:35:58PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>> On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 08:27:02PM -0500, Graham Wilson wrote:
>> > How about:
>> >
>> > We, Debian developers, issue the statement:
>> >
>> > "On the question on what software shou
* Debian Project Secretary ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040523 23:55]:
> On Sat, 22 May 2004 01:41:13 +0200, Bill Allombert
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > 4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
>
> > 4.1. Powers
>
> >Together, the Developers may:
> > 5. Issue nontechnical
17 matches
Mail list logo
