On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 09:44:11 +1100
Glenn McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:25:28 -0500
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > We promise to [-keep the-] {+preserve your right to freely use,
> > modify, an
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 09:44:11 +1100
Glenn McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:25:28 -0500
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > We promise to [-keep the-] {+preserve your right to freely use,
> > modify, an
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:25:28 -0500
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We promise to [-keep the-] {+preserve your right to freely use,
> modify, and distribute+} Debian [-GNU/Linux Distribution entirely
I am opposed to the reference to Linux, surely we want the social
contrac
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:25:28 -0500
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We promise to [-keep the-] {+preserve your right to freely use,
> modify, and distribute+} Debian [-GNU/Linux Distribution entirely
I am opposed to the reference to Linux, surely we want the social
contrac
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 23:36:12 -0500
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
>
> Here is a draft ballot for the GR under discussion. There are
> 3 variants being proposed, and hence the ballot begins to look like
> the draft below. This is a draft, the first call for vote
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 23:36:12 -0500
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
>
> Here is a draft ballot for the GR under discussion. There are
> 3 variants being proposed, and hence the ballot begins to look like
> the draft below. This is a draft, the first call for vote
On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 09:36:23 -0500
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 11:14:19PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > Perhaps we could have compulsory voting then :-|
>
> Why would rendering us unable to block a vote for lack of quorum be a
> *good* thing? If I'm not
On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 09:36:23 -0500
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 11:14:19PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > Perhaps we could have compulsory voting then :-|
>
> Why would rendering us unable to block a vote for lack of quorum be a
> *good* thing? If I'm not
> And why do you think this should be allowed?
Because they are a part of the debian community, and probably have a
reasonable understanding of debian politics.
> I think we should investigate why they are so long
> in the queue, but giving them voting rights per se is not
> a good idea IMHO, as
> And why do you think this should be allowed?
Because they are a part of the debian community, and probably have a
reasonable understanding of debian politics.
> I think we should investigate why they are so long
> in the queue, but giving them voting rights per se is not
> a good idea IMHO, as
On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 16:03:41 -0600
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My original point was that people who do not actually
> exercise their franchise are unlikely to be one of the active set --
> and need to be looked at to see if they are indeed inactive. Having
> inactive me
On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 16:03:41 -0600
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My original point was that people who do not actually
> exercise their franchise are unlikely to be one of the active set --
> and need to be looked at to see if they are indeed inactive. Having
> inactive me
On Fri, 8 Mar 2002 01:12:52 -0500
"Branden Robinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's never fun when a candidate has to go on the defensive, but in an
> effort to combat some of the FUD that a few people keep falling back
> upon about my colorful(?) personality, and to provide evidence
> supporti
On Fri, 8 Mar 2002 01:12:52 -0500
"Branden Robinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's never fun when a candidate has to go on the defensive, but in an
> effort to combat some of the FUD that a few people keep falling back
> upon about my colorful(?) personality, and to provide evidence
> support
There are a number of delegates appointed by the debian project leader to
perform important tasks within debian. Who do you intend to appoint to
these positions ? If you arent prepared to announce names yet, will you do
so prior to the start of voting ?
Thanks
Glenn
There are a number of delegates appointed by the debian project leader to
perform important tasks within debian. Who do you intend to appoint to
these positions ? If you arent prepared to announce names yet, will you do
so prior to the start of voting ?
Thanks
Glenn
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
On Thu, 4 Oct 2001 19:26:31 -0500
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You may not advertise your WWW pages, or cause another person to
> advertise it, by techniques that would be classified as abuse if they
> were carried out from a Debian Account. This includes, but is not
> lim
On Thu, 4 Oct 2001 19:26:31 -0500
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You may not advertise your WWW pages, or cause another person to
> advertise it, by techniques that would be classified as abuse if they
> were carried out from a Debian Account. This includes, but is not
> li
On 04 Oct 2001 09:03:20 -0400
Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Branden" == Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
> Branden> I propose that Michael Bramer be ordered to stop sending
> Branden> automated mails to other developers (regarding the DDTS
> Branden>
On 04 Oct 2001 09:03:20 -0400
Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Branden" == Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
> Branden> I propose that Michael Bramer be ordered to stop sending
> Branden> automated mails to other developers (regarding the DDTS
> Branden
Cmon people, its getting a bit OT to argue about the grammer of the
announcment isnt it (as long as the numbers are correct).
Glenn
Cmon people, its getting a bit OT to argue about the grammer of the
announcment isnt it (as long as the numbers are correct).
Glenn
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
22 matches
Mail list logo
