On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 22:54:27 -0500, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> There are two issues here: does the old policy violate the social
>> contract,
> Yes, I do not think there is much of dispute on that regards
> (well, there is none, in my mind).
> I would like to poi
On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 12:24:56 +1000, Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 03:09:16AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Manoj Srivastava:
>> >> For our users, we promise to do regular releases; as a
>> >> guideline, a major release of the distribution should happen
>> >>
On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 03:09:16 +0200, Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> * Manoj Srivastava:
>>> For our users, we promise to do regular releases; as a guideline,
>>> a major release of the distribution should happen about once a
>>> year.
>>
>> On what basis do you think we can make this p
On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 03:09:16AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Manoj Srivastava:
> >> For our users, we promise to do regular releases; as a guideline, a
> >> major release of the distribution should happen about once a year.
> > On what basis do you think we can make this promise?
Why ar
* Manoj Srivastava:
>> For our users, we promise to do regular releases; as a guideline, a
>> major release of the distribution should happen about once a year.
>
> On what basis do you think we can make this promise?
On the same basis that we promise not to hide bugs? Or not to rely on
no
Robert Millan wrote:
>
> I'm concerned about proposal E. I believe it essentialy means that any
> changes that are made to the DFSG or SC won't have any effect if they make
> them more strict, but they will have effect if they relax them. Is that
> the intended in "[..] for a limited time, Debian
On Wed, 02 Jun 2004, Frank Küster wrote:
> Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do you think the contents of the link should be cited, instead of
> giving only the URL, or what are you missing?
So state that the RM is directed to use the following requirements for
determining which packages
On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 10:27:58 +0200, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> * Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040602 09:25]:
>> On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 10:19:15 +0200, Andreas Barth
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Reaffirmation of the social contract - priorities
>> > are our users and
* Raul Miller ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040602 12:40]:
> On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 10:27:58AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > However, as the 3:1-majority is needed anyways(*), I don't mind to add
> > something like:
> > In the opinion of the Secretary, this proposal overrules the social
> > contract, and
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 10:27:58AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> However, as the 3:1-majority is needed anyways(*), I don't mind to add
> something like:
> In the opinion of the Secretary, this proposal overrules the social
> contract, and needs therefor a 3:1-majority. In the opinion of the
> prop
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > That's a nice thing to say, but in the short term, what exactly does
>> > this mean for the various clases of controversial works under
>> > discussion here?
>>
>> See the last part of the proposal.
>
> The last part of the proposal only indicates tha
* Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040602 09:25]:
> On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 10:19:15 +0200, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Reaffirmation of the social contract - priorities
> > are our users and the free software community
>
> > For our users, we promise to do regular releases
On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 10:19:15 +0200, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Reaffirmation of the social contract - priorities
> are our users and the free software community
> We, Debian, reaffirm that our priorities are our users and the free
> software community. We keep to that, both a
13 matches
Mail list logo
