Seconded, with s!judgemen.!judgement.!
Simon
On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 09:28:53PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Here is the current version
>
> manoj.
>
> I propose we adopt a foundation document that tries to provide
> guidance and explanation for the transitions required whenever a
>
Seconded, with s!judgemen.!judgement.!
Simon
On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 09:28:53PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Here is the current version
>
> manoj.
>
> I propose we adopt a foundation document that tries to provide
> guidance and explanation for the transitions required whenever a
>
I second the following amendment.
Simon
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 04:57:45PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
>
> [This version contains typographical fixes, and a tightening
> up of the grammar, of the foundation document. I do not
> believe any substantive changes hav
I second the following amendment.
Simon
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 04:57:45PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
>
> [This version contains typographical fixes, and a tightening
> up of the grammar, of the foundation document. I do not
> believe any substantive changes hav
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 10:22:00AM +0100, Massimo Coletti wrote:
> Removing the non-free section will narrow the perspective of the Linux
> world offered by Debian, and somehow limit a degree of freedom currently
> available for Debian users.
>
> Cutting away non-free software may apper as a revam
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 10:22:00AM +0100, Massimo Coletti wrote:
> Removing the non-free section will narrow the perspective of the Linux
> world offered by Debian, and somehow limit a degree of freedom currently
> available for Debian users.
>
> Cutting away non-free software may apper as a revam
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 06:09:56PM -0500, Bob Hilliard wrote:
> Helen Faulkner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Partly it's knowing that I'm going to be dealing
> > with a man (almost certainly), and he may assume I don't know what I'm
> > doing, and he may put me down or be con
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 06:09:56PM -0500, Bob Hilliard wrote:
> Helen Faulkner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Partly it's knowing that I'm going to be dealing
> > with a man (almost certainly), and he may assume I don't know what I'm
> > doing, and he may put me down or be con
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 12:11:46PM +, Helen Faulkner wrote:
> This is my opinion, anyway :)
I'm glad you expressed your opinion. I was going to posit it
myself, based on conversations with my girlfriend, but hearing it from a
woman is much better.
There's no rational reason w
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 12:11:46PM +, Helen Faulkner wrote:
> This is my opinion, anyway :)
I'm glad you expressed your opinion. I was going to posit it
myself, based on conversations with my girlfriend, but hearing it from a
woman is much better.
There's no rational reason w
On Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 02:00:19AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Actually, if the phrase were that ambiguous, your statement about what
> it means would be consistent with the social contract, but the social
> contract still would have other conflicting meanings.
>
> That your interpetation conflict
On Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 02:00:19AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Actually, if the phrase were that ambiguous, your statement about what
> it means would be consistent with the social contract, but the social
> contract still would have other conflicting meanings.
>
> That your interpetation conflict
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 05:23:26PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 12:42:57PM -0500, Simon Law wrote:
> > The Debian system could be our distribution network, or the
> > process by which we assemble the Debian distribution. Whereas the
> > D
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 05:23:26PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 12:42:57PM -0500, Simon Law wrote:
> > The Debian system could be our distribution network, or the
> > process by which we assemble the Debian distribution. Whereas the
> > D
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 10:21:40PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Anyways -- could you elaborate a it on the reasons you thinke "the Debian
> distribution" is better than "the Debian system"?
The Debian system could be our distribution network, or the
process by which we assemble the Debian d
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 10:21:40PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Anyways -- could you elaborate a it on the reasons you thinke "the Debian
> distribution" is better than "the Debian system"?
The Debian system could be our distribution network, or the
process by which we assemble the Debian d
I second the proposal quoted below, as well as future editorial changes.
Simon
On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 04:25:28PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> [Please direct followups to debian-vote.]
>
> Now that the vote over the meaning of clause 4.1.5 of the Debian
> Constitution is drawing to a close,
I second the proposal quoted below, as well as future editorial changes.
Simon
On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 04:25:28PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> [Please direct followups to debian-vote.]
>
> Now that the vote over the meaning of clause 4.1.5 of the Debian
> Constitution is drawing to a close,
On Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 04:16:06PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 12:29:40PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > ==
> >
> > 4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
> >
> >4.1. Powe
On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 12:29:40PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> ==
>
> 4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
>
>4.1. Powers
>
> Together, the Developers may:
> 1. Appoint or recall the Proj
On Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 04:16:06PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 12:29:40PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > ==
> >
> > 4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
> >
> >4.1. Powe
On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 12:29:40PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> ==
>
> 4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
>
>4.1. Powers
>
> Together, the Developers may:
> 1. Appoint or recall the Proj
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 12:04:28AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Do people think that we should only supercede foundation
> documents, and never modify them? I would not be averse to preserving
> a historical record.
I think we should never modify them. It should be possible
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 12:04:28AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Do people think that we should only supercede foundation
> documents, and never modify them? I would not be averse to preserving
> a historical record.
I think we should never modify them. It should be possible
Manoj,
I would like to add my approval to these editorial comments. The idea
of superseding previous documents sits far better with me than the idea
of modification. The preservation of a historical record of our
decisions is one of the ways we make our intentions clear to the world.
Pl
Manoj,
I would like to add my approval to these editorial comments. The idea
of superseding previous documents sits far better with me than the idea
of modification. The preservation of a historical record of our
decisions is one of the ways we make our intentions clear to the world.
Pl
On Thu, Sep 18, 2003 at 02:33:08PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>We seem to have stalled on this proposal. There have been, if I
> recall correctly, three seconds to my proposal, and one request for a
> change, namely to explicitly list the foundation documents in the
> constitution, whi
On Thu, Sep 18, 2003 at 02:33:08PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>We seem to have stalled on this proposal. There have been, if I
> recall correctly, three seconds to my proposal, and one request for a
> change, namely to explicitly list the foundation documents in the
> constitution, whi
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 11:24:11PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
[snip]
> ==
> 4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
>
>4.1. Powers
>
> Together, the Developers may:
> 1. Appoint or recall
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 11:24:11PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
[snip]
> ==
> 4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
>
>4.1. Powers
>
> Together, the Developers may:
> 1. Appoint or recall
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 11:27:54PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 16:04:00 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> said:
> > Now that our Constitution has been amended, I hope the original
> > version will be archived in an easily accessible place; we should do
> > the
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 11:27:54PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 16:04:00 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Now that our Constitution has been amended, I hope the original
> > version will be archived in an easily accessible place; we should do
> > the sa
I second this resolution, and am attaching the full text below.
Simon
On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 12:42:59PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi folks,
>
> This GR was first broached on December 14th, 18th and 19th,
> 2000, by Raul Miller.
33 matches
Mail list logo
