> Due to a loop hole in the constitution, any group of 6 Debian
> developers can delay any general resolution indefinitely by putting
> up their own amendment, and every 6 days, making substantiative
> changes in their amendment (they can just rotate between a small
> number of very di
> At last count, the following had sconded the previous draft, I hope
> there is no problem with the changes made with this version.
I have no problem with these changes.
Regards,
Mako
--
Benjamin Mako Hill
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mako.cc/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
> I agree with the sense and letter but have a few factual, grammar and
> other minor corrections, which I'd like to formally propose as
> amendments. I'd appreciate it if you'd accept them. I propose each
> change as a separate amendment so you may accept some or all of them;
> they're numbered
> That pipeline will almost certainly be GFDL/CC-BY-SA. It's really sad
> to see blood boil over these licenses. Since I am talking to people
> at FSF & CC regularly, I would be more than happy to bring Debian
> concerns to both groups in a, hopefuly, productive fashion.If
> there's a desire
Yes. I know I'm not a candidate but I thought I'd answer this anyway
to clarify what CDDs are doing and advocating. :)
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 02:14:39PM +0100, Mario Lang wrote:
> I have seen lots of discussions about CDD and splitting up Debian
> into a core and more-or-less independent topic sp
Yes. I know I'm not a candidate but I thought I'd answer this anyway
to clarify what CDDs are doing and advocating. :)
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 02:14:39PM +0100, Mario Lang wrote:
> I have seen lots of discussions about CDD and splitting up Debian
> into a core and more-or-less independent topic sp
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 05:32:13PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Short memory. Don't some FSF machines use Debian?
I think basically all of them do. It should go without saying: sans
non-free.
Regards,
Mako
--
Benjamin Mako Hill
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mako.yukidoke.org/
signature.asc
Description:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 05:32:13PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Short memory. Don't some FSF machines use Debian?
I think basically all of them do. It should go without saying: sans
non-free.
Regards,
Mako
--
Benjamin Mako Hill
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mako.yukidoke.org/
signature.asc
Description:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 08:41:01AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> However, Raul does not want to introduce changes to the social
> contract which change the direction of the project.
I fear that recent traffic on this list demonstrates that our current
social contract leaves open the possibility of h
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 08:41:01AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> However, Raul does not want to introduce changes to the social
> contract which change the direction of the project.
I fear that recent traffic on this list demonstrates that our current
social contract leaves open the possibility of h
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 03:38:20PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > How do you compromise between A and B when the the distinguishing
> > > feature is that A wants to have nothing to do with B?
>
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 12:10:30PM -0800, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> >
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 10:14:15PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> Free Software will stay in Debian just because it is preffered and
> useful. Not because of some stupid philosophical idea.
A lot Debian developers happen to care about these philosophical
ideas.
I doubt that calling those be
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 03:38:20PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > How do you compromise between A and B when the the distinguishing
> > > feature is that A wants to have nothing to do with B?
>
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 12:10:30PM -0800, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> >
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 10:14:15PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> Free Software will stay in Debian just because it is preffered and
> useful. Not because of some stupid philosophical idea.
A lot Debian developers happen to care about these philosophical
ideas.
I doubt that calling those be
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 10:26:56PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Sure, tell people it's not official, or not supported, or not
> recommended, or whatever, but don't choose meanings for your terms
> where you have to engage in horrendous circumlocutions just to talk
> about stuff.
Unofficial or uns
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 09:26:50PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> I don't like "Shall Continue", as it feels as though you have to know
> that you're reading a second-edition social contract for it to make
> sense. Would
>
> New: "1. Debian Will Continue to Distribute Software That's 100% Free"
>
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 09:18:41AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > I view this as an important compromise the social contract struck
> > between those folks who did not want to (or would not!) work on a
> > project that was not an explicitly a Free Software project and those
> > who did wanted to hav
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 10:26:56PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Sure, tell people it's not official, or not supported, or not
> recommended, or whatever, but don't choose meanings for your terms
> where you have to engage in horrendous circumlocutions just to talk
> about stuff.
Unofficial or uns
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 09:26:50PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> I don't like "Shall Continue", as it feels as though you have to know
> that you're reading a second-edition social contract for it to make
> sense. Would
>
> New: "1. Debian Will Continue to Distribute Software That's 100% Free"
>
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 09:18:41AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > I view this as an important compromise the social contract struck
> > between those folks who did not want to (or would not!) work on a
> > project that was not an explicitly a Free Software project and those
> > who did wanted to hav
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 12:28:38AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Old: "1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software"
>
> If we ignore the rest of the social contract, there's two distinct
> interpretations of this phrase.
>
> [A] Software which Debian distributes which is completely free will
> remain
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 12:28:38AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Old: "1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software"
>
> If we ignore the rest of the social contract, there's two distinct
> interpretations of this phrase.
>
> [A] Software which Debian distributes which is completely free will
> remain
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 11:16:16AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> I'd hope people try out Debian because either it's cool or Free
> Software and then eventually see "Oh, there's this non-free
> stuff. Let's see if there's something useful there."
I think that with the old non-free question, most pe
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 10:00:15PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > That's not currently a relevant issue.
> > >
> > > That said: a vote to get rid of non-free when non-free is empty would
> > > have different significance than a vote to get rid of non-free when
> > > non-free contains packages som
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 11:16:16AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> I'd hope people try out Debian because either it's cool or Free
> Software and then eventually see "Oh, there's this non-free
> stuff. Let's see if there's something useful there."
I think that with the old non-free question, most pe
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 10:00:15PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > That's not currently a relevant issue.
> > >
> > > That said: a vote to get rid of non-free when non-free is empty would
> > > have different significance than a vote to get rid of non-free when
> > > non-free contains packages som
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:57:20AM -0600, Brian McGroarty wrote:
> Instead of severing non-free all at once, why not try and phase it out
> more progressively?
It doesn't take a wild imagination to guess that if any proposal to
remove non-free passes it will either involve or lead to some sort of
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:57:20AM -0600, Brian McGroarty wrote:
> Instead of severing non-free all at once, why not try and phase it out
> more progressively?
It doesn't take a wild imagination to guess that if any proposal to
remove non-free passes it will either involve or lead to some sort of
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 07:15:13PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 15:41:15 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 08:31:58PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 13:16:54 -0500, Branden Robinson
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTE
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 07:15:13PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 15:41:15 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 08:31:58PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 13:16:54 -0500, Branden Robinson
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTE
On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 02:09:42PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 06:14:24PM -0800, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> > Also, in the first sentence in the second section, the proposed text
> > reads: "we will license them as freely in a manner consistent with
On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 02:09:42PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 06:14:24PM -0800, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> > Also, in the first sentence in the second section, the proposed text
> > reads: "we will license them as freely in a manner consistent with
On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 01:41:40AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> I think I agree with the comment that this amendment mixes too many
> things into one proposal. For example, I agree with the generalisation
> (rationale point 2) and most of the "editorial" changes, but violently
> disagree with changing
On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 01:41:40AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> I think I agree with the comment that this amendment mixes too many
> things into one proposal. For example, I agree with the generalisation
> (rationale point 2) and most of the "editorial" changes, but violently
> disagree with changing
On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 02:04:40AM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> I've created an HTML version of the amendment that I find easier to
> read and understand than the wdiff output. It's available at
>
> http://www.xs4all.nl/~dark/draft-sc-amendment-20031030.html
>
> I've used and tags to mark
On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 02:04:40AM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> I've created an HTML version of the amendment that I find easier to
> read and understand than the wdiff output. It's available at
>
> http://www.xs4all.nl/~dark/draft-sc-amendment-20031030.html
>
> I've used and tags to mark
On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 07:33:39PM -0400, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> Apparently I'm doing something wrong when signing messages. Can
> someone tell me what's wrong with this email?
I'm getting a correct signature with the key thats listed on db.debian.org.
Regards,
Mako
--
Benjamin Mako Hill
[
On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 07:33:39PM -0400, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> Apparently I'm doing something wrong when signing messages. Can
> someone tell me what's wrong with this email?
I'm getting a correct signature with the key thats listed on db.debian.org.
Regards,
Mako
--
Benjamin Mako Hill
[
38 matches
Mail list logo