On Thu, 9 Feb 2006, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > Well, maybe the wording was not deceptive enough ?
> Maybe people should get re-acquinted with GR 2004-04 and its results before
> they bring up GR 2004-03, even for jokes.
No, no. The funny joke is to modify the constitution with a decept
On Thu, 9 Feb 2006, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le jeudi 09 février 2006 à 11:12 +0100, Xavier Roche a écrit :
> > Maybe we could suggest another "editorial change" and revert to the
> > previous wording (not everything is software)
> This has already been voted. An
On Thu, 9 Feb 2006, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> I'd propose to revert this and clearly define what software is.
I fully agree. The "Holier than Stallman" stuff is really getting
ridiculous. After the firmware madeness, now the documentation madeness.
And after that, the font madeness maybe ? (after all
On Thu, 9 Feb 2006, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> Well, maybe the people who mislabeled the "everything is software" vote
> as an "editorial change" and deceived many other developers should have
> tought about this.
Maybe we could suggest another "editorial change" and revert to the
previous wording (not
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 01:45:40AM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> Hereby I am proposing an amendment to the GR about GFDL opened by
> Anthony Towns [Sun, 01 Jan 2006 15:02:04 +1000]
> GNU Free Documentation License protects the freedom,
> it is compatible with Debian Free Software Guidelines
I sec
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004, Philip Charles wrote:
> Admins are not the only people interested in 64-bit.
> Why not release r1 (r2, rx) when amd64 is ready? Whould it realy matter
> if there were minimal changes in the other archs provided that amd64 was
> released asap?
This is exactly what I was sugges
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 02:43:59PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> recognizing that the AMD64-based architectures are likely to become the
> most widespread on personal computers and workstations in a near future,
>
> hereby resolves:
Seconded. It's high time to push AMD64 on production.
pgpID
On Sat, 22 May 2004, Graham Wilson wrote:
> "On the question on what software should be allowed in the main section
> of our archive (The official Debian distribution) for our forthcoming
> release code-named Sarge, we resolve that all programs must meet the
I assume programs != firmwares
>
On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 01:06:00AM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> * Can Craig and people who seconded original proposal [2] to second
>this as the formal rationale for Craig's proposal [1]?
Yes, seconded.
> Craig Sanders proposed the following resolution [1] (reformatted):
> ---
On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 01:06:00AM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> * Can Craig and people who seconded original proposal [2] to second
>this as the formal rationale for Craig's proposal [1]?
Yes, seconded.
> Craig Sanders proposed the following resolution [1] (reformatted):
> ---
On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 09:44:03AM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> The Debian Project,
> hereby resolves:
>1. that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within
> the General Resolution Editorial Amendments To The Social
>
On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 09:44:03AM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> The Debian Project,
> hereby resolves:
>1. that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within
> the General Resolution Editorial Amendments To The Social
>
On Wed, 5 May 2004, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> I have the suspect that this choice will marginalize
> Debian in respect to other distros. I'm not sure this will be a great
> benefit for the free software community, at last.
> What's next step? Remove non-free support at all with a new GR?
On Wed, 5 May 2004, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> I have the suspect that this choice will marginalize
> Debian in respect to other distros. I'm not sure this will be a great
> benefit for the free software community, at last.
> What's next step? Remove non-free support at all with a new GR?
Hi,
On 29 Apr 2004, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> And so the question is "why can I not modify these bits?" and the
> answer is: the author refuses to permit me access to the source and
> restricts my copying of the bits.
I fully agree: the firmware is a evil, proprietary code. But it is always
Hi,
On 29 Apr 2004, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> And so the question is "why can I not modify these bits?" and the
> answer is: the author refuses to permit me access to the source and
> restricts my copying of the bits.
I fully agree: the firmware is a evil, proprietary code. But it is always
Hi,
On 29 Apr 2004, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > The firmware is a detached part of the connected hardware, nothing more.
> > The loading process just reconnects this part so that the hardware can
> > work.
> I am confused. When I purchase the hardware, why do I not get this,
> since it is aft
Hi,
On 29 Apr 2004, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > The firmware is a detached part of the connected hardware, nothing more.
> > The loading process just reconnects this part so that the hardware can
> > work.
> I am confused. When I purchase the hardware, why do I not get this,
> since it is aft
On 29 Apr 2004, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> If firmware were part of the connected hardware, it would be part of
> the hardware, and the kernel wouldn't be loading anything.
The firmware is a detached part of the connected hardware, nothing more.
The loading process just reconnects this part so
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 09:45:18AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> i propose an amendment that deletes everything but clause 1 of this proposal,
> so that the entire proposal now reads:
>
>that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within the
>General Resolution "Editorial Amendmen
On 29 Apr 2004, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> If firmware were part of the connected hardware, it would be part of
> the hardware, and the kernel wouldn't be loading anything.
The firmware is a detached part of the connected hardware, nothing more.
The loading process just reconnects this part so
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 09:45:18AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> i propose an amendment that deletes everything but clause 1 of this proposal,
> so that the entire proposal now reads:
>
>that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within the
>General Resolution "Editorial Amendmen
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Umm. I'm confused. These are two distinct options. Did you
> mean to second Steve Langasek's proposal? Or Duncan Findlay's
> amendment.? Or both?
Both, despite Steve rejected the amendment.
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Umm. I'm confused. These are two distinct options. Did you
> mean to second Steve Langasek's proposal? Or Duncan Findlay's
> amendment.? Or both?
Both, despite Steve rejected the amendment.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 03:28:33 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>In order to be counted, seconds have to be signed.
Sorry, my gpg signature wasn't sent apparently.
I also second the Steve Langasek's proposal, with Duncan Findlay's amendment.
pgp1Xan0oDLY2.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 03:28:33 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>In order to be counted, seconds have to be signed.
Sorry, my gpg signature wasn't sent apparently.
I also second the Steve Langasek's proposal, with Duncan Findlay's amendment.
pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 08:41:35PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > The Debian Project,
> > hereby resolves:
..
I will also second this proposal.
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 08:41:35PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > The Debian Project,
> > hereby resolves:
..
I will also second this proposal.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> Perhaps for our next GR, we can contemplate whether it's appropriate
> that less than 20% of the developers is enough to change one of our most
> important documents.
Especially considering that it was intended to be only a matter of several
"Editorial
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> Perhaps for our next GR, we can contemplate whether it's appropriate
> that less than 20% of the developers is enough to change one of our most
> important documents.
Especially considering that it was intended to be only a matter of several
"Editorial
30 matches
Mail list logo
