Re: Vote Tallied

You also have multiple copies saved in the archive. Everyone will recieve one of these emails for each ballot they sent in. On Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 04:38:02PM +0100, Christian Surchi wrote: > On Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 04:16:14PM +0100, Alain Schroeder wrote: > > Well I got it, but I got it twice?!

Re: Vote Tallied

The message appears to have been sent twice. It's certainly saved twice in the email archive. The message IDs, dates, and such are all identical but I think this would be the relevent part of the header: Received: by butterfly.home.parkautomat.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 4023CD

Re: Vote Tallied

You also have multiple copies saved in the archive. Everyone will recieve one of these emails for each ballot they sent in. On Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 04:38:02PM +0100, Christian Surchi wrote: > On Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 04:16:14PM +0100, Alain Schroeder wrote: > > Well I got it, but I got it twice?!

Re: Vote Tallied

The message appears to have been sent twice. It's certainly saved twice in the email archive. The message IDs, dates, and such are all identical but I think this would be the relevent part of the header: Received: by butterfly.home.parkautomat.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 4023C

Re: Vote Tallied

Ok, thanks :) I'm on my way to test... On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 10:11:25PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, Darren O. Benham wrote: > > > > Ko... as soon as I get Jason's response... > > I don't actually know with exim. You shou

Re: Vote Tallied

> Thanks, > > -- > Raul > > On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 09:10:54PM -0800, Darren O. Benham wrote: > > Ok, the reprocessor is ready. I made a few changes so that "errors" won't > > get resent.. just valid responses... Since you are running the vote, please &

Re: Vote Tallied

Ok, thanks :) I'm on my way to test... On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 10:11:25PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, Darren O. Benham wrote: > > > > Ko... as soon as I get Jason's response... > > I don't actually know with exim. You shou

Re: Vote Tallied

> Thanks, > > -- > Raul > > On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 09:10:54PM -0800, Darren O. Benham wrote: > > Ok, the reprocessor is ready. I made a few changes so that "errors" won't > > get resent.. just valid responses... Since you are running the vote, please &

Re: Vote Tallied

Ok, the reprocessor is ready. I made a few changes so that "errors" won't get resent.. just valid responses... Since you are running the vote, please announce that the reprocessing of ballots is about to start. Since the mailbox is still chmod me.. I'll have to do the actual running of the ballo

Re: Vote Tallied

Ok, the reprocessor is ready. I made a few changes so that "errors" won't get resent.. just valid responses... Since you are running the vote, please announce that the reprocessing of ballots is about to start. Since the mailbox is still chmod me.. I'll have to do the actual running of the ball

Re: Vote Tallied

On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 01:34:53PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 12:20:14PM +0100, Sven LUTHER wrote: > > how can we know it is wrong (well know for sure, as different from having > > the > > suspision ?) (writing this last but...) The fact the the number of characters do no

Re: Vote Tallied

On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 01:34:53PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 12:20:14PM +0100, Sven LUTHER wrote: > > how can we know it is wrong (well know for sure, as different from having the > > suspision ?) (writing this last but...) The fact the the number of characters do not ma

Re: Vote Tallied

Ok, I fixed that part of the code. All future votes will be tallied correctly. The entire ballot box is saved. Shortly, I'll run the mails through the vote-take script again. EVERYONE and I mean EVERYONE who has voted will receive a SECOND confirmation in the next couple of days. If the seco

Re: Vote Tallied

Oh man :( Those dashes were important!! On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 10:33:16AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Sun, Mar 11, 2001 at 06:25:19PM -0600, Acting Debian Project Secretary > wrote: > > Your ballot has been received and tallied. > >

Re: Vote Tallied

Ok, I fixed that part of the code. All future votes will be tallied correctly. The entire ballot box is saved. Shortly, I'll run the mails through the vote-take script again. EVERYONE and I mean EVERYONE who has voted will receive a SECOND confirmation in the next couple of days. If the sec

Re: Vote Tallied

Oh man :( Those dashes were important!! On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 10:33:16AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Sun, Mar 11, 2001 at 06:25:19PM -0600, Acting Debian Project Secretary wrote: > > Your ballot has been received and tallied. > > --

Re: FYI -- vote administrivia

Yea... they ended up in my mail box :/ Darren On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 09:31:17AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > Acknowledgements were not sent for ballots submitted during > the first (approximately) five hours after the CFV announcement. > > If you sent in a vote and did not get an acknowledgement

Re: FYI -- vote administrivia

Yea... they ended up in my mail box :/ Darren On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 09:31:17AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > Acknowledgements were not sent for ballots submitted during > the first (approximately) five hours after the CFV announcement. > > If you sent in a vote and did not get an acknowledgemen

Re: Nomination

Please GPG sign your nomination... Darren On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 07:01:52PM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote: > With this message, I publicly announce my intention to seek election as the > next Debian Project Leader. > > Bdale > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject

Re: Nomination for Debian Project Leader (DPL)

Please GPG sign this nomination... Darren On Fri, Feb 02, 2001 at 07:35:11AM +1100, Anand Kumria wrote: > I intend to run for DPL this year. I also am available for > questioning on OpenProjects in #debian and other channels. > > I'm happy to answer questions via email as well. Like > others ru

Re: Nomination

Please GPG sign your nomination... Darren On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 07:01:52PM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote: > With this message, I publicly announce my intention to seek election as the > next Debian Project Leader. > > Bdale > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subjec

Re: Nomination for Debian Project Leader (DPL)

Please GPG sign this nomination... Darren On Fri, Feb 02, 2001 at 07:35:11AM +1100, Anand Kumria wrote: > I intend to run for DPL this year. I also am available for > questioning on OpenProjects in #debian and other channels. > > I'm happy to answer questions via email as well. Like > others r

Status of Proposals

There are two standing proposals that I know of. If something hasn't been done (I believe either Manoj or Overfiend are on vacation or recently came back from), I'd like to clearify. I had a conversation with Overfiend last week and was informed (unofficially, unfortunatly) that he and Manoj came

expiry announcement

My gratitude to Branden Robinson for help in constructing this message in a form that will hopefully be clear to all. *** SNIP HERE *** Per section A.5 ("Expiry") of the constitution, both John Goerzen's General Resolution regarding non-free, and Anthony Towns's amendment thereto, have expired.

Status of Proposals

There are two standing proposals that I know of. If something hasn't been done (I believe either Manoj or Overfiend are on vacation or recently came back from), I'd like to clearify. I had a conversation with Overfiend last week and was informed (unofficially, unfortunatly) that he and Manoj cam

expiry announcement

My gratitude to Branden Robinson for help in constructing this message in a form that will hopefully be clear to all. *** SNIP HERE *** Per section A.5 ("Expiry") of the constitution, both John Goerzen's General Resolution regarding non-free, and Anthony Towns's amendment thereto, have expired.

Re: [Notice] Social Contract Change Vote

I admit that that ballot was unclear :( I did like Mr. Buck's ballot and I received another good suggestion via private email. On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 11:11:40AM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote: > On Tue, 10 Oct 2000, Darren O. Benham wrote: > > > What would you like to see? >

Re: [Notice] Social Contract Change Vote

I admit that that ballot was unclear :( I did like Mr. Buck's ballot and I received another good suggestion via private email. On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 11:11:40AM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote: > On Tue, 10 Oct 2000, Darren O. Benham wrote: > > > What would you like to see? >

Re: [Notice] Social Contract Change Vote

What would you like to see? On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 10:57:05AM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote: > The '[BALLOT] Social Contract Change' message was completely confusing. I > have listened to the discussion on the list, and no one there seems to > know how to mark the ballot either, although there is ple

Re: [BALLOT] Social Contract Change Amendment

You are absolutly correct and did a better job explaining it (on both accounts). Thank you! On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 10:51:05PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 08:06:36PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > > You

Re: PROPOSED: [CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT] disambiguation of 4.1.5

I thought I'd respond to some of this just as a way of clarifying my thinking... > Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > * This proposal was originally made to debian-project on 19 July, but > > according to , the current > > Projec

Re: [Notice] Social Contract Change Vote

What would you like to see? On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 10:57:05AM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote: > The '[BALLOT] Social Contract Change' message was completely confusing. I > have listened to the discussion on the list, and no one there seems to > know how to mark the ballot either, although there is pl

Re: [BALLOT] Social Contract Change Amendment

You are absolutly correct and did a better job explaining it (on both accounts). Thank you! On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 10:51:05PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 08:06:36PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > > You

Re: PROPOSED: [CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT] disambiguation of 4.1.5

I thought I'd respond to some of this just as a way of clarifying my thinking... > Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > * This proposal was originally made to debian-project on 19 July, but > > according to , the current > > Proje

Non-free Proposal

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 First of all, I want to apologize for "disappearing". Originally I was allowed time from work to perform Debian duties. I have taken steps to correct the lack of time that will, shortly, be announced. :) In the mean time, please forgive my lapse. H

Non-free Proposal

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 First of all, I want to apologize for "disappearing". Originally I was allowed time from work to perform Debian duties. I have taken steps to correct the lack of time that will, shortly, be announced. :) In the mean time, please forgive my lapse.

Re: An ammendment (Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free)

On Sun, Jun 11, 2000 at 04:05:30PM -0600, Norman Petry wrote: > On Sat, June 10, 2000 10:00 PM, Branden Robinson wrote: > > > > >On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 09:53:40PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote: > >> Now follows a dissertation on the voting system: > >[...] > > > >Thanks for the primer; this was qui

Re: An ammendment (Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free)

On Sun, Jun 11, 2000 at 04:05:30PM -0600, Norman Petry wrote: > On Sat, June 10, 2000 10:00 PM, Branden Robinson wrote: > > > > >On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 09:53:40PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote: > >> Now follows a dissertation on the voting system: > >[...] > > > >Thanks for the primer; this was qu

Re: Parliamentary Questions...

Just a quick note.. as many people know, my wife just had a baby by C-Section so I'm a little preoccupied until life returns to a more normal routine. I will be back at work on Monday and I will assess the status of Mr. Goerzen's proposal and Mr. Townes amendment. My assumption from browsing the

Re: Parliamentary Questions...

Just a quick note.. as many people know, my wife just had a baby by C-Section so I'm a little preoccupied until life returns to a more normal routine. I will be back at work on Monday and I will assess the status of Mr. Goerzen's proposal and Mr. Townes amendment. My assumption from browsing the

Re: It isn't quite Condorcet's method.

I could rediscribe the method but I couldn't make changes as large as what were suggested without going through the formal change process for the constitution. On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 07:27:43PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, Branden Robinson wrote: > > > I should point o

Re: It isn't quite Condorcet's method.

I could rediscribe the method but I couldn't make changes as large as what were suggested without going through the formal change process for the constitution. On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 07:27:43PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, Branden Robinson wrote: > > > I should point

Re: It isn't quite Condorcet's method.

In the end, it takes a lot to change our constitution and I fail to see what would be gained. On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 01:36:43AM +, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote: > [snipped an interesting and long discussion on voting methods] > > If members of debian want to perfect their voting system, > then I sug

Re: It isn't quite Condorcet's method.

In the end, it takes a lot to change our constitution and I fail to see what would be gained. On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 01:36:43AM +, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote: > [snipped an interesting and long discussion on voting methods] > > If members of debian want to perfect their voting system, > then I su

Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free

On Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 10:56:39PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 08:49:03AM -0700, Darren O. Benham wrote: > > > Not so.. the call for vote can only come from the proposer or one of the > > sponsors. (A.2.1) > > I think it's a terminology confu

Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free

On Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 10:56:39PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 08:49:03AM -0700, Darren O. Benham wrote: > > > Not so.. the call for vote can only come from the proposer or one of the > > sponsors. (A.2.1) > > I think it's a terminology confu

Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free

On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 11:03:33PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > DEBIAN GENERAL RESOLUTION > > Proposed by: John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Seconds: Stephen R. Gore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Jim Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >

Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free

I suppose it's important to point out that I, as secretary, havn't seen any sponsorships. The archives for debian-vote show only the proposal and one objection and this email. Note, the webpage doesn't seem to have been updated yet but the real archive is at /debian2/web/lists on master. On Thu,

Re: [BALLOT] Leader Election 2000

On Thu, Mar 02, 2000 at 04:47:35PM -0300, Lalo Martins wrote: > (sorry for cross-posting to -devel-announce, but I think the > answer to this is important enought to be posted there) > > On Thu, Mar 02, 2000 at 06:40:53PM -, Debian Project Secretary wrote: > > For anyone who might have misunde

Re: [secretary@debian.org] Vote Mail failed: An error occured while performing the LDAP lookup

I'm beginning to think I'm using an old keyring... On Mon, Feb 28, 2000 at 10:22:52AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > "Darren O. Benham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > The key you used was not in the keyring that the vote system used... > > &g

Re: [secretary@debian.org] Vote Mail failed: An error occured while performing the LDAP lookup

It uses gpg... pgp was used in the generic sense... On Mon, Feb 28, 2000 at 10:32:15AM -0800, Seth R Arnold wrote: > If I remember the text of the ballot, it asked for pgp keys. It said > nothing about gpg. Since I can't vote in the thing, I didn't email the > fellow running it, and ask about pgp

Re: [secretary@debian.org] Vote Mail failed: An error occured while performing the LDAP lookup

On Mon, Feb 28, 2000 at 10:10:40AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > What is up with this? Does "key" refer to my GPG key? If so, I > signed it with a key that IS in the keyring: > > pub 1024D/8A1D9A1F 2000-01-30 John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > sub 4096g/D74C643B 2000-01-30 > > Other than that,

Re: [BALLOT] Leader Election 2000

On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 10:39:31PM +0100, Richard Braakman wrote: > On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 05:14:29PM +, Jules Bean wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 08:40:38AM -0800, Darren O. Benham wrote: > > > Ballot #1 was a test ballot... and should have been reset. > &g

Re: [BALLOT] Leader Election 2000

On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 01:08:58PM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote: > Previously Debian Project Secretary wrote: > > CALL FOR VOTES > > (2 of 2) > > `2 of 2' ? Ballot #1 was a test ballot... and should have been reset. Heck, I'm thinking we need th

Re: ITS

You intention to run must be signed with the GPG key matching your developer's key in the Debian keyring. On Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 02:15:04PM +, Matthew Vernon wrote: > Hi, > > Just a brief note informing you of my intention to stand for > election as Debian Project Leader. A full platfo

Re: Ad hoc and spontaneous voting

On Wed, Jun 30, 1999 at 10:30:29PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Fine. I had figureds that -vote would be related to the vote > process, but if you wish to clutter up this mailing list with > general discussions Like I said, I really don't care where the actual discussion is held. I

Re: Ad hoc and spontaneous voting

On Wed, Jun 30, 1999 at 02:24:54PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > a) All general resolutions must start with an announcement to > debian-devel-announce and debian-devel, with foolow ups > redirected to -devel. No. resolutions won't be tracked on -devel. If I get cc'd, I'll end up g

Re: Ad hoc and spontaneous voting

On Tue, Jun 29, 1999 at 08:20:13PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote: > This might be a good idea, but how did I get dragged into it? I have neither > voted nor added to this vote discussion. > > Adam, who is a little perplexed First name I came up with... -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, als

Re: Ad hoc and spontaneous voting

On Wed, Jun 30, 1999 at 12:19:44AM +0200, Davide G. M. Salvetti wrote: > What about the proposer of a vote writing the pros, and---at the end > of the discussion period---anybody so inclined submitting cons by > means of a procedure similar to the amendment one (i.e., with a proper > number of supp

Re: Logo swap vote is bogus

On Tue, Jun 29, 1999 at 08:46:51PM +0100, Philip Hands wrote: > OK, it looks like a mail SNAFU and the web pages being behind, have conspired > to ensure that I didn't see that. > > I'll leave you with a fairly simple question: > > I like the swirl logo, and want it to be widely used. > I do

Re: Ad hoc and spontaneous voting

On Tue, Jun 29, 1999 at 12:02:12PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Tue, 29 Jun 1999, Darren O. Benham wrote: > > > I don't think it should be "any blind ramblings" but a situation where the > > Secretary is required to write the pro and con summaries

Re: Ad hoc and spontaneous voting

On Tue, Jun 29, 1999 at 11:37:02AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > As secretary, I would love that. The web team will need volunteers to > > write those posistion statements, however. During the Leader Elections, I > > tried to get platform statments that could be put up on vote.debian.org and

Re: Ad hoc and spontaneous voting

On Wed, Jun 30, 1999 at 02:34:24AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > FWIW, I'm also a little troubled by the plethora of votes. I quite So have I. Some of these I can see the need, such as the non-free vote that's coming up. But I thought something like the logo swap could have been settled through d

Re: Ad hoc and spontaneous voting

On Tue, Jun 29, 1999 at 08:59:38AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Hi, > > I am wondering what value do these suddenly burgeoning votes > have? I understand that they may give us an understanding about > public opinion, but what other charter are they run under? They > certainly do not

Re: Logo swap vote is bogus

On Tue, Jun 29, 1999 at 02:35:01AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote: > Yes, you are. The situation has changed. We now have a logo, we > voted on that, and I'm certainly not trying to change that fact. > > If you want to be pedantic this vote is actually an attempt to reverse > the previous logo vote,

Re: Logo swap vote is bogus

On Mon, Jun 28, 1999 at 09:35:51PM +0100, Philip Hands wrote: > [ I'm cross-posting this, because it seems that people managed to miss what > is > going on what with messages being spread across debian-vote, and > debian-publicity. Please follow up to -publicity] [I did not follow up to -public

Re: Moving contrib and non-free of master.debian.org

On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 05:54:02PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: > > > And the non-free appearing in the path is not a dead give away? > > > > > > > that's those debs are not an part of the official distribution? No, it's > > not. > > Would making them available as > ftp.debian.org/debian

Re: Moving contrib and non-free of master.debian.org

On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 02:59:31PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Darren> The difference is more for the casual browser browsing the > Darren> ftp/http trees. > > And the non-free appearing in the path is not a dead give away? > that's those debs are not an part of the official dist

Re: deregulate/purge "non-free"; merge "contrib" & "main"

On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 03:16:24PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote: > The license is still free, even though the code may "legally" infringe on > someone's patent "rights". I could be mistaken here, do we not have stuff in non-free because of patent issues? -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me,

Re: deregulate/purge "non-free"; merge "contrib" & "main"

On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 01:36:24PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote: > > > The stuff in contrib, IMO, belongs in Main. The GPL says nothing > > GPL might not.. but the GPL isn't our litmus test. It's the DFSG. > > The DFSG is a _licensing_ guildeline and says nothing about functionality. > The DFSG _

Re: deregulate/purge "non-free"; merge "contrib" & "main"

On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 02:06:27PM -0400, Will Lowe wrote: > Here's my reasoning: > > Nonfree stuff isn't part of Debian(tm), and never can be. The > current scheme allows _only_ Debian developers to create packages for > non-free, which lends an aura of officialness. Take non-free comple

Re: Moving contrib and non-free of master.debian.org

On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 02:34:55AM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote: > I suspect the net effect is the same, however. (My bad, should have > re-read the constitution.) In about 75% of the cases (that I tested), it is... > The bottom line is that RMS's concerns are addressed by the voting system. Agree

Re: vote.debian.org: swapping the logos (is it happening?)

On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 12:15:30AM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote: > http://vote.debian.org/ claims there's a vote on swapping the logos > going on, but the ballot sender won't send me a ballot to vote on > it... what gives? I jumped the gun on the web page. I tried to time it so the web pages didn'

Re: Moving contrib and non-free of master.debian.org

On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 01:43:17AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Thanks to apt, this is impossible unless we make apt annoying > (and hence reduce its utility). I don't think moving it shall make > much of a difference to people, apart fr5om the annoyance of having > to change mirror

Re: Moving contrib and non-free of master.debian.org

On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 01:40:14AM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote: > Debian uses a single transferable voting method, in which developers > rank their preferences. Presumably your votes would be 1243 (in order > of ballot position). > > Assuming "no further discussion" appears #1 on the least ballot

Re: Moving contrib and non-free of master.debian.org

On Tue, Jun 22, 1999 at 10:37:24PM +0200, Norbert Nemec wrote: > Guess, that idea already has been discussed and ruled out, but still I think > it may serve better: > > Why not put some kind of a sign on every non-free package, instead of moving > those packages anywhere? There is a number of ways

Re: Moving contrib and non-free of master.debian.org

On Tue, Jun 22, 1999 at 07:21:37PM +0100, Enrique Zanardi wrote: > IMHO, if we choose I), the creation of nonfree.debian.org and the move of > non-free and contrib there should be postponed until potato is released. > But there's no point in discussing it until the vote is done... > > -- I'm not

Re: Moving contrib and non-free of master.debian.org

On Tue, Jun 22, 1999 at 10:26:01AM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > I suggest also to purge master of non-free software, if we are really serious > about free software purity: > > #37143 www.debian.org: Should use a free search engine. > > And master still uses qmail :-( Debian *is* doing t

Re: Moving contrib and non-free of master.debian.org

On Tue, Jun 22, 1999 at 12:40:14AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > Good point but (in the rest) I think you carried it to far.. to an extreme. > > Deliberately so, but still. Sometimes painting a horror picture can focus > attention - As I said at the bottom, I feared a rehash of the merits of >

Re: Moving contrib and non-free of master.debian.org

On Mon, Jun 21, 1999 at 07:47:40PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > For instance, your proposal is too specific because it does not provide > any guidance for what to do with non-us, the web pages, bug system, user > web pages or APT. Good point but (in the rest) I think you carried it to far.. to a

Re: Moving contrib and non-free of master.debian.org

On Mon, Jun 21, 1999 at 05:05:03PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote: > I think it could be done simply by moving contrib and non-free out of the > dists/ directory.. Nobody is confused as to project/experimental and I > think they would be no more confused by something on the order of > nondebian/potat

Re: Moving contrib and non-free of master.debian.org

On Tue, Jun 22, 1999 at 12:43:26AM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > YEAH!!! Wichert, you are my hero! It's so important that we make a decision > on it, and I hope it will be (1) or (2), but not (3). I agree :) > Richard Stallman will be happy, too, and I think it is a good idea to make > this ste

Re: just so you won't miss it...

On Mon, Jun 21, 1999 at 06:22:05PM -0400, R Garth Wood wrote: > I'll just send this directly to debian-vote(there was no reply-to). > > The reason the distinction is not clear now is that ppl want > that feature(to be easy to install debs of any license). > If you try to change that they will just

Re: The Ugly Logo and the Consequences

On Fri, Jun 11, 1999 at 08:29:03AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > On Thu, Jun 10, 1999 at 12:17:16PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote: > > > I am not interested in the other discussion on this list. > > > > Then how can you possibly make an informed decision? Ok, the logo was > > pretty simple (althou

Re: The Ugly Logo and the Consequences

On Thu, Jun 10, 1999 at 05:58:21PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > On Thu, Jun 10, 1999 at 02:36:20AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote: > > I think it takes < 1 minute about once a week to click on a bookmark > > to bring up a relatively simple page to check if there is an active > > proposal. If you'd

Re: Clarification on vote page and archiving this list

On Fri, May 28, 1999 at 07:06:15PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote: > The current text reads: > > Modified swirl pending "swirl w/ offical" > > I would suggest the following: > > Modified swirl: as swirl, but only the version without the vase; the > official and general versions to be distinguished

Re: [BALLOT] Logo2

On Fri, May 28, 1999 at 03:02:01PM +0200, Peter Makholm wrote: > As I see it there is the official without bottle and an unofficial > with a bottle. Raul just provided a colour and a B&W version of both. > > Swirl only, isn't that the Modified Swirl with an optional "Official" > statement on the -

Re: Clarification on vote page and archiving this list

On Fri, May 28, 1999 at 02:35:39PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote: > *Please* could there be a clarification of "Modified swirl" on the > votes page. I'd be happy too. What do you suggest? What is unclear? > Please could someone arrange for this list to be make accessible on > the mailing list archi

Re: [BALLOT] Logo2

On Fri, May 28, 1999 at 12:34:32AM +0200, Davide G. M. Salvetti wrote: > Well, does this mean everyone who casted a vote should send it again it? > > Thanks, If did not get back an error message... no. If you ballot was accepted, then everything is fine. The only people who need to recast a ball