On Mon, 25 Sep 2006, Steve Langasek wrote:
> And with my original proposal withdrawn, is it still your opinion
> that this resolution warrants a vote of its own?
It's not as important anymore, but it does resolve a few of the open
"how do we interpret what the DFSG says" questions in regards to
so
On 9/20/06, Denis Barbier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Anthony Towns [wrote]:
A question that has been raised is whether the
organisation can be sufficiently "outside" of Debian when
the DPL is intimately involved. I don't have the answer
to that - in my opinion it can be, but whether
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Tuesday 26 September 2006 01:40, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > I agree that there are practical implications, and that something
> > should be done about them, but I think that they're out of scope for a
> > resolution whose purpose is to clarify how DFSG #2 sh
On 9/21/06, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 12:17:18 +0100, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> 3. The person who calls for a vote states what they believe the
> wordings of the resolution and any relevant amendments are, and
> consequently what form t
On Tuesday 26 September 2006 01:40, Don Armstrong wrote:
> I agree that there are practical implications, and that something
> should be done about them, but I think that they're out of scope for a
> resolution whose purpose is to clarify how DFSG #2 should be
> interpreted.
I stand by my opinion
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006, Frans Pop wrote:
> I strongly object to separating this proposal out and calling for a
> vote without any alternative proposals or amendments, for the
> foolowing reasons:
>
> 1) The proposal on its own adds nothing to the status quo: the SC is
> currently widely understood to
On Monday 25 September 2006 05:11, Don Armstrong wrote:
> Baring objection, I plan on calling for a vote with a suggested balot
> containing only this option in a few days (no later than 09-27).[1]
> [The Secretary, of course, can override this suggested ballot.]
I strongly object to separating th
Hi Don,
On Sun, Sep 24, 2006 at 08:11:58PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Sep 2006, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > As far as placing it or not placing it on a separate ballot, it
> > would be nice to have it separate, as it deals with clarifying the
> > firmware problem before exceptions are g
On Sun, Sep 24, 2006 at 10:55:59PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 09:47:22PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > 4 does not seem to account for the fact that removing such firmware may mean
> > having to choose between losing support for certain hardware in our
> > installer, a
Le lun 25 septembre 2006 09:42, Martin Schulze a écrit :
> Martin Schulze wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 07:10:25PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > > > > I'd say that I'm not more comfortable with Steve McIntyre
> > > > > beeing involved and a DPL-assistant (or whatever name his
> > > > >
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> First resolution `We disapprove of dunc-tank':
> -8<-
> BACKGROUND
>
> 1. Anthony Towns, the current Debian Project Leader, has suggested
> funding the Debian Release Managers' living expenses during
Martin Schulze wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 07:10:25PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > > > I'd say that I'm not more comfortable with Steve McIntyre beeing
> > > > involved and a DPL-assistant (or whatever name his position has)
> > > > either, so if Aj stops beeing involved with dunc-tan
12 matches
Mail list logo
