that the text
> be editted for 3:1 supermajority requirement cases.
Well, I am actually inhabiting the real world rather than the Debian
parallel universe!
An amendment to a document (in the real world) always implies a change
of text; that is how you can tell that it has changed.
--
Oliver
On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 18:36 +0100, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Oliver Elphick wrote:
> > I object to being asked to vote on a meaningless proposal. If I vote
> > for 3, am I voting for an amendment to DFSG, Social Contract or
> > Constitution? Which one of those
On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 16:35 +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> Oliver Elphick writes:
> > Nevertheless, no foundation document is actually being changed.
> > Therefore either this is a new foundation document, which requires a
> > change to the constitution, or it does not re
dd the rest of the amendment as a third
foundation document. He should not produce a procedural mess such as
this!
--
Oliver Elphick olly@lfix.co.uk
Isle of Wight http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver
GPG: 1024D/A54310EA 92C8 39E7 28
t the spirit of things;
they need to be clear.
If choice 3 gets a majority but not by 3:1, whose view of the legalities
will prevail?
--
Oliver Elphick olly@lfix.co.uk
Isle of Wight http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver
GPG: 1024D/A54310EA
On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 13:24 +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> Oliver Elphick writes:
> > If the Secretary's creative interpretation is allowed to stand, the
> > proper description of what is happening can only be that this proposal
> > adds a new foundation document.
>
&
y for choice 3 is invalid.
--
Oliver Elphick olly@lfix.co.uk
Isle of Wight http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver
GPG: 1024D/A54310EA 92C8 39E7 280E 3631 3F0E 1EC0 5664 7A2F A543 10EA
On Wed, 2004-07-14 at 13:41, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Oliver Elphick ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040714 14:25]:
> > It is very discourteous to ignore people. Don't your fellow developers
> > deserve some human consideration and courtesy?
>
> Did you ever try to speak to D
On Wed, 2004-07-14 at 12:15, Daniel Silverstone wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Oliver Elphick wrote:
> | However, this GR should not have been necessary. I second it in the
> | hope that dropping a sledgehammer on their toes will get the ftpmaste
On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 21:41, James Troup wrote:
> If you want to help with getting amd64 into the archive...
What, in your opinion, is needed for it to go into the archive?
If we know that, we can indeed help. If this is public information,
please provide a URL.
--
Oliver Elph
> this resolution would welcome if the people responsible would just do
> it, thereby making this resolution superfluous.
Seconded.
However, this GR should not have been necessary. I second it in the
hope that dropping a sledgehammer on their toes will get the ftpmasters
to learn to com
they refuse to
communicate; this issue has been raised for at least a month on the
lists without any comment from them (that I have seen). No project can
work if its key members operate like that. Communication is an
essential skill.
--
Oliver Elphick
considerations,
this package will only extract the source code for MMIX onto your
system. After installation, you will have to run build-mmix to build
the binary package and install it." This doesn't sound like a package
whose maintainer has been careless about copyright.
--
Oliver E
considerations,
this package will only extract the source code for MMIX onto your
system. After installation, you will have to run build-mmix to build
the binary package and install it." This doesn't sound like a package
whose maintainer has been careless about copyright.
--
Oliver E
nges.
>
> Can you give a reference for that,
smalleiffel, now smarteiffel, was an example. It went into non-free
while RMS negotiated with its authors until it became the GNU Eiffel
compiler (and is now in main).
--
Oliver Elphick[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Isle
nges.
>
> Can you give a reference for that,
smalleiffel, now smarteiffel, was an example. It went into non-free
while RMS negotiated with its authors until it became the GNU Eiffel
compiler (and is now in main).
--
Oliver Elphick[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Isle
go (maybe they are still around),
condemning each other for slight differences of doctrine and having no
effect at all on political life.
--
Oliver Elphick[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Isle of Wight, UK http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver
GPG: 1024D/3E1D0C1C:
go (maybe they are still around),
condemning each other for slight differences of doctrine and having no
effect at all on political life.
--
Oliver Elphick[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Isle of Wight, UK http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver
GPG: 1024D/3E1D0C1C:
nt to care for users' convenience than for FSF purity; if you
want aggressive promotion of free software purity, the FSF exists for
that purpose and has its own archive. Any user who doesn't like
non-free can simply exclude it from his sources.list.
The time to get rid of non-fre
nt to care for users' convenience than for FSF purity; if you
want aggressive promotion of free software purity, the FSF exists for
that purpose and has its own archive. Any user who doesn't like
non-free can simply exclude it from his sources.list.
The time to get rid of non-fre
; commonplace that didactic phraseology is construed to be
> misinformation? If people do not understand what "shall" means in
> context, then they have worse problems than understanding the ballot
> when it comes to reading the constitution.
What you wrote is
On Tue, 2003-10-14 at 07:59, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 07:42:32AM +0100, Oliver Elphick wrote:
> > Devotee? I don't understand that reference.
>
> Devotee is the voting mechanism.
Thanks. I was imagining something quite different!
; commonplace that didactic phraseology is construed to be
> misinformation? If people do not understand what "shall" means in
> context, then they have worse problems than understanding the ballot
> when it comes to reading the constitution.
What you wrote is
On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 23:02, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 22:44:28 +0100, Oliver Elphick said:
> > Nevertheless, that use of "shall" is so strange that I had to read
> > the sentence twice to understand it. It is not correct English.
>
>
On Tue, 2003-10-14 at 07:59, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 07:42:32AM +0100, Oliver Elphick wrote:
> > Devotee? I don't understand that reference.
>
> Devotee is the voting mechanism.
Thanks. I was imagining something quite different!
On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 23:02, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 22:44:28 +0100, Oliver Elphick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Nevertheless, that use of "shall" is so strange that I had to read
> > the sentence twice to understand it. It is not correct En
ected toit.
Debian is a volunteer organisation with no money; therefore no prizes
either.
--
Oliver Elphick[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Isle of Wight, UK http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver
GPG: 1024D/3E1D0C1C: CA12 09E0 E8D5 8870 5839 932A
ess, that use of "shall" is so strange that I had to read the
sentence twice to understand it. It is not correct English.
The sentence does not fit the grammatical rule you quote, because a
voting mechanism is incapable of having or expressing an intention or
purpose. It is just a thing
ected toit.
Debian is a volunteer organisation with no money; therefore no prizes
either.
--
Oliver Elphick[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Isle of Wight, UK http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver
GPG: 1024D/3E1D0C1C: CA12 09E0 E8D5 8870 5839 932A
ess, that use of "shall" is so strange that I had to read the
sentence twice to understand it. It is not correct English.
The sentence does not fit the grammatical rule you quote, because a
voting mechanism is incapable of having or expressing an intention or
purpose. It is just a thing
^
This is still wrong: supersession.
--
Oliver Elphick[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Isle of Wight, UK http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver
GPG: 1024D/3E1D0C1C: CA12 09E0 E8D5 8870 5839 932A 614D
^
This is still wrong: supersession.
--
Oliver Elphick[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Isle of Wight, UK http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver
GPG: 1024D/3E1D0C1C: CA12 09E0 E8D5 8870 5839 932A 614D
ond this
> modified proposal).
...
> + 5.3 A Foundation Document requires a 3:1 supermajority for its
> + supercession.
Spelling: supersession (and supersede) - the derivation is not the same
as that of concession and concede.
--
Oliver Elphick[EMAIL
ond this
> modified proposal).
...
> + 5.3 A Foundation Document requires a 3:1 supermajority for its
> + supercession.
Spelling: supersession (and supersede) - the derivation is not the same
as that of concession and concede.
--
Oliver Elphick[EMAIL
for various
>add-on components may make it more convenient to host staging areas
>that don't quite conform to policy: in order to make Gnome packages
>consistent, or to make IPv6 packages usable, or even to distribute
>Debianised KDE source.
>
>I imagine this ammend
for various
>add-on components may make it more convenient to host staging areas
>that don't quite conform to policy: in order to make Gnome packages
>consistent, or to make IPv6 packages usable, or even to distribute
>Debianised KDE source.
>
>I imagine this ammend
36 matches
Mail list logo
