Re: Filibustering general resolutions

2006-09-20 Thread Benj. Mako Hill
> 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

Re: Constitutional Amendment GR: Handling assets for the project

2006-07-22 Thread Benj. Mako Hill
> 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

Re: Constitutional Amendment GR: Handling assets for the project

2006-07-21 Thread Benj. Mako Hill
> 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

Re: GR Proposal: GFDL statement

2006-01-10 Thread Benj. Mako Hill
> 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

Re: A(nother) question to the candidates

2004-03-22 Thread Benj. Mako Hill
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

Re: A(nother) question to the candidates

2004-03-22 Thread Benj. Mako Hill
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

Re: drop or keep non-free - from users viewpoint

2004-03-13 Thread Benj. Mako Hill
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:

Re: drop or keep non-free - from users viewpoint

2004-03-13 Thread Benj. Mako Hill
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:

Re: A transition plan to fsf-linux.org

2004-01-29 Thread Benj. Mako Hill
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

Re: A transition plan to fsf-linux.org

2004-01-29 Thread Benj. Mako Hill
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

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

2004-01-27 Thread Benj. Mako Hill
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: > >

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

2004-01-27 Thread Benj. Mako Hill
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

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

2004-01-27 Thread Benj. Mako Hill
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: > >

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

2004-01-27 Thread Benj. Mako Hill
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

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

2004-01-27 Thread Benj. Mako Hill
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

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

2004-01-27 Thread Benj. Mako Hill
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" >

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

2004-01-27 Thread Benj. Mako Hill
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

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

2004-01-27 Thread Benj. Mako Hill
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

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

2004-01-27 Thread Benj. Mako Hill
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" >

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

2004-01-27 Thread Benj. Mako Hill
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

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

2004-01-27 Thread Benj. Mako Hill
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

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

2004-01-27 Thread Benj. Mako Hill
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

Re: Another Non-Free Proposal

2004-01-08 Thread Benj. Mako Hill
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

Re: The "Free" vs. "Non-Free" issue

2004-01-08 Thread Benj. Mako Hill
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

Re: Another Non-Free Proposal

2004-01-08 Thread Benj. Mako Hill
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

Re: The "Free" vs. "Non-Free" issue

2004-01-08 Thread Benj. Mako Hill
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

Re: Revoking non-free less violently

2004-01-05 Thread Benj. Mako Hill
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

Re: Revoking non-free less violently

2004-01-05 Thread Benj. Mako Hill
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

Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract

2003-11-01 Thread Benj. Mako Hill
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

Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract

2003-11-01 Thread Benj. Mako Hill
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

Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract

2003-10-30 Thread Benj. Mako Hill
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

Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract

2003-10-30 Thread Benj. Mako Hill
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

Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract

2003-10-29 Thread Benj. Mako Hill
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

Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract

2003-10-29 Thread Benj. Mako Hill
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

Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract

2003-10-29 Thread Benj. Mako Hill
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

Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract

2003-10-29 Thread Benj. Mako Hill
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

Re: Second Call for votes for the Constitutional Amendment GR to disambiguate section 4.1.5

2003-10-23 Thread Benj. 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 [

Re: Second Call for votes for the Constitutional Amendment GR to disambiguate section 4.1.5

2003-10-23 Thread Benj. 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 [