ble. I'll send
the highest bidder the necessary key to verify my vote.
Thanks!
Steve "I stay bought" Greenland
--
Steve Greenland
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
world.
. to amend the license
to clarify this and other problematical parts of it. They have not been
able to do so. I think that makes it pretty clear that using "notes from
RMS" to bypass this license term is unlikely to work.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland
The irony is that Bill Gates
ect, and who they'd go to for ideas and second
opinions. All Project Scud has done is make that idea public. We, the
voters, can look at that list and decide if we also respect those people
or not.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operat
ry was a way to snipe at Mr. Suffield. If you have a problem with
the way a maintainer is handling a package, take it to the DPL or tech
committee. Snide stories on debian-devel don't help.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
sy
", "working together" and "discharging
> responsibility".
I wish that were more funny and less accurate.
> Then again, maybe that's only me?
Nope.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and
ions are being made in. These
are procedural issues, and entirely within the purview of the DPL to
question.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
world. -- seen on the n
n a way that is useful for
our users may (*may*) not be so easy. Both steps are desirable to a
significant fraction of the developers.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over th
only
conclusion I can draw from it is that quite few more people voted for
the change than against it.
--
Steve Greenland
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
world. -- seen on the net
only
conclusion I can draw from it is that quite few more people voted for
the change than against it.
--
Steve Greenland
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
world. -- seen on the net
--
supposed to be 1<=X<=10, or is the voting software
unreasonably limited? (I'm guessing the former, and voting
accordingly...)
Steve
--
Steve Greenland
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
world. -- seen on the net
e
A.6.2 could be read as *defining* Q to be the quorum requirement,
it could also be read as defining the quorum requirement to be the
previously defined value of Q.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvalds cla
e
A.6.2 could be read as *defining* Q to be the quorum requirement,
it could also be read as defining the quorum requirement to be the
previously defined value of Q.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvalds cla
l as many other things), which is why AJ, Buddha Buck,
Raul, and a couple of people from the election-methods list have been
working on a proposal to clarify and improve Debian's voting procedure
and rules.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read
every list I post to.)
l as many other things), which is why AJ, Buddha Buck,
Raul, and a couple of people from the election-methods list have been
working on a proposal to clarify and improve Debian's voting procedure
and rules.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(Please do not CC me on mail
ates, I believe), judges are an
elected position, so they do (possibly) change with the rest of the
government.
(Yes, it's a horrible way to select judges, subject to all the obvious
abuses that you might think of.)
Steve
--
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(Please do not CC me on
ates, I believe), judges are an
elected position, so they do (possibly) change with the rest of the
government.
(Yes, it's a horrible way to select judges, subject to all the obvious
abuses that you might think of.)
Steve
--
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(Please do not CC me on
irst vote to determine what combination of GR+ammendment(s) will be
considered (using a simple Condorcet winner).
2. Vote on whether to accept the final proposal. Since this is a simple
yes/no, determining a super-majority is trivial.
Steve
[1] Well, except in the sense of if there is a 2:1 requi
super-majorities:
1. First vote to determine what combination of GR+ammendment(s) will be
considered (using a simple Condorcet winner).
2. Vote on whether to accept the final proposal. Since this is a simple
yes/no, determining a super-majority is trivial.
Steve
[1] Well, except in the sense
bian Free Software Guidelines.
Since it's part of the constitution, it may be modified in the same way:
a GR to modify 5.2 that succeeds with a 3:1 majority.
Regardless of that, we probably need to get a consistent capitilazation:
is it "foundation Documents" or "Foundation
Debian Free Software Guidelines.
Since it's part of the constitution, it may be modified in the same way:
a GR to modify 5.2 that succeeds with a 3:1 majority.
Regardless of that, we probably need to get a consistent capitilazation:
is it "foundation Documents" or "Foundation
outcome of the last vote was.
I am hoping strongly that that vote is annulled without ever announcing
the result in favor a new ballot and new vote.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read
every list I post to.)
outcome of the last vote was.
I am hoping strongly that that vote is annulled without ever announcing
the result in favor a new ballot and new vote.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read
every list I post
On 31-Oct-00, 11:27 (CST), Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2000 at 10:26:19AM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > That's not completely obvious to those of us reading the lists.
>
> Well, maybe it wasn't obvious, but it should be obvious no
On 31-Oct-00, 11:27 (CST), Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2000 at 10:26:19AM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > That's not completely obvious to those of us reading the lists.
>
> Well, maybe it wasn't obvious, but it should be obvious no
ure that what he says next is as correct as possible.
Actually there was an urgency. There isn't now, because the vote ended
10/23/2000, with no response from Darren after 10/10/2000 (unless I
inadvertantly deleted something, which is quite possible, so feel free
to correct me).
Steve
--
Stev
ure that what he says next is as correct as possible.
Actually there was an urgency. There isn't now, because the vote ended
10/23/2000, with no response from Darren after 10/10/2000 (unless I
inadvertantly deleted something, which is quite possible, so feel free
to correct me).
Steve
--
Stev
hat, except by Branden's point that the vote should
not be taking place at all.)
To avoid the "expired" issue, I'd like to see John's GR and Anthony's
ammendment re-introduced with a minimum discussion period. At the end of
that, a new ballot that is reasonably clear ab
hat, except by Branden's point that the vote should
not be taking place at all.)
To avoid the "expired" issue, I'd like to see John's GR and Anthony's
ammendment re-introduced with a minimum discussion period. At the end of
that, a new ballot that is reasonabl
you talking about? At this point, if
non-free is removed without a vote on this proposed ammendment, I (and
presumably many others) will assume that it is a deliberate breach of
the Debian constitution by those who perform the action, and request
that the Project Leader eject those developers from
you talking about? At this point, if
non-free is removed without a vote on this proposed ammendment, I (and
presumably many others) will assume that it is a deliberate breach of
the Debian constitution by those who perform the action, and request
that the Project Leader eject those developers from the project.
Steve Greenland
PGP signature
On 05-Jul-00, 16:54 (CDT), Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Craig Sanders wrote:
> > the facts do support what i say. the debian constitution states what
> > documents may be created or modified by vote, yet fails to mention that
> > either the social contract or the DFSG may be so modified.
On 05-Jul-00, 16:54 (CDT), Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Craig Sanders wrote:
> > the facts do support what i say. the debian constitution states what
> > documents may be created or modified by vote, yet fails to mention that
> > either the social contract or the DFSG may be so modified
On 15-Jun-00, 22:39 (CDT), John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > Will you please stop equating "I want to provide the best experience
> > for our users" with "I support non-free software at
On 15-Jun-00, 22:39 (CDT), John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > Will you please stop equating "I want to provide the best experience
> > for our users" with "I support non-free software at
On 13-Jun-00, 01:30 (CDT), John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 03:30:04PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > What do we need this in a GR for?
> >
> > To reaffirm the principles you are working to erode.
>
> Your princ
On 13-Jun-00, 01:30 (CDT), John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 03:30:04PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > What do we need this in a GR for?
> >
> > To reaffirm the principles you are working to erode.
>
> Your prin
ng about how everyone else isn't doing everything
> > for them.
>
> Agreed.
In full power AOL-mode:
me too. And what IanJ said (or will say, if you haven't read it yet), as
well.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read
every list I post to.)
First off, I also use Netscape instead of Mozilla because Mozilla is not
yet ready for primetime (although M7 was close). I'm simply playing
devil's advocate here:
On 03-Jul-99, 23:34 (CDT), Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My choice to use Netscape doesn't hurt
> anyone else (certain
On 30-Jun-99, 14:24 (CDT), Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> c) The call for votes should be submitted to -devel and -vote, after
> the discussion period is over and a final form of the resolution
> is available, along with any amendments, etc, which have recieved
> ad
On 10-Jun-99, 17:29 (CDT), Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For other ballots, I would be; for this one, I didn't find any
> discussion necessary. I can't see why all discussion of a ballot
> must occur on the debian-vote list. Most of these things being on
> debian-devel, and could rem
On 10-Jun-99, 02:58 (CDT), Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Unfortunately it is all too easy for CFVs to get lost on this mailing list.
:0:
* Subject:.*CFV
Mail/voteannounce
> I would prefer it remained an announce list, or that CFVs were also sent
> to debian-devel-announce.
I too
On 10-Jun-99, 00:25 (CDT), Sven LUTHER <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey, you now they are some countries where you are fined if you don't
> show to vote, i think they believe that voting is an obligation not a
> right.
As a totally off-topic point, I completely disagree with that concept.
> Yes
On 08-Jun-99, 14:51 (CDT), Stephen Crowley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I totally agree, I wasn't even aware there was a vote going on until I
> saw someone talking about it on IRC. I'm not not on -devel, there is
> way too much traffic there. Why cant the CFV be CC:'ed to -private or
> something?
t the swirl thing
(although I like it otherwise): that the official was simpler than the
un-official -- it just didn't click for me mentally.
Steve Greenland
44 matches
Mail list logo
