Hi Charles!
You wrote:
> - Following the announcement of the 22nd of October on the
> debian-devel-announce
>mailing list (Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) about "Developer
>Status";
>
> - Given the importance of defining how the Project accepts new members;
>
> - Because of the str
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 08:31:29PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 10:37:52PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > > Nevertheless I would merge it in my proposal if you still want me to.
> > If we must have a GR, I would feel better with these options on
> > the ballot
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 10:10:55AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> - Following the announcement of the 22nd of October on the
> debian-devel-announce
>mailing list (Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) about "Developer
>Status";
>
> - Give
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 10:37:52PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Nevertheless I would merge it in my proposal if you still want me to.
>
> If we must have a GR, I would feel better with these options on
> the ballot.
Okay then. Here's the new ballot including your proposed options.
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 02:46:47AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 06:40:14PM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >I propose to amend the Robert's resolution by adding the following choice
> >---
> >The Debian project, recognizing that bugs do not fix themselve
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 02:36:06PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> we'll be more likely to be push many of them towards installing
> other (even less free) systems instead.
Is there a reason why those interested in supporting blob-dependant hardware
can't make a release that includes those blobs?
On Sat, Oct 25 2008, Jeff Carr wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 22:22, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>It should not take us an indefinite time to release with
>> firmware blobs gone. I'll stake my reutation that the period involved
>> is not indefinite, and there is a up
On Sat, Oct 25 2008, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Agreed, if we can make a dent in the non-free stuff in a reasonably
> short period. Then it'll work fine. If we delay too long, then we'll
> leave many of our users in their (current) worse situation and (even
> worse) we'll be more likely to be push m
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 22:22, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It should not take us an indefinite time to release with
> firmware blobs gone. I'll stake my reutation that the period involved
> is not indefinite, and there is a upper boundary to it.
>
>Testing out th
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 01:07:06AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>On Sat, Oct 25 2008, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>
>> There's also the argument that the sooner we release Lenny with the
>> improvements that *have* been made, the sooner the people using stable
>> will be able to move away from whatever
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Charles Plessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - Following the announcement of the 22nd of October on the
> debian-devel-announce
>mailing list (Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) about "Developer
>Status";
>
> - Given the importance of defining
Robert Millan wrote:
>
> I hereby propose the following General Resolution to stablish a procedure
> for resolving DFSG violations:
I believe that the Debian project is way better off without this
General Resolution and with the rules and social contract as they are
to date. Even worse, I have t
12 matches
Mail list logo
