Anthony Towns writes:
> > Sure they do:
> >
> > 4. Overrule a Developer (requires a 3:1 majority).
> >The Technical Committee may ask a Developer to take a particular
> >technical course of action even if the Developer does not wish to;
> >this requires a 3:1 majority.
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Sure they do:
> >
> > 4. Overrule a Developer (requires a 3:1 majority).
> >The Technical Committee may ask a Developer to take a particular
> >technical course of action even if the Developer does not wish to;
> >this requi
Anthony Towns writes:
> Sure they do:
>
> 4. Overrule a Developer (requires a 3:1 majority).
>The Technical Committee may ask a Developer to take a particular
>technical course of action even if the Developer does not wish to;
>this requires a 3:1 majority. For exampl
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sure they do:
>
> 4. Overrule a Developer (requires a 3:1 majority).
>The Technical Committee may ask a Developer to take a particular
>technical course of action even if the Developer does not wish to;
>this requires a 3:1 m
On 2004-03-13 14:36:21 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Sat, Mar 13, 2004 at 10:33:32AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-12 22:49:26 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 12:02:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
It seems reasonable to ask whether the main
On Sat, Mar 13, 2004 at 10:33:32AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-03-12 22:49:26 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 12:02:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> >>It seems reasonable to ask whether the maintainer can just close or
> >>ignore
> >>the bug as invalid
On Sat, Mar 13, 2004 at 02:22:41AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Then after a time, either when he agrees or he is being unreasonable,
> > you bring the issue before the technical comittee, which can override
> > the maintainer if he is being wrong
On 2004-03-13 14:36:21 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Sat, Mar 13, 2004 at 10:33:32AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-12 22:49:26 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 12:02:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
It seems reasonable to ask whether the maintain
On Sat, Mar 13, 2004 at 10:33:32AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-03-12 22:49:26 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 12:02:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> >>It seems reasonable to ask whether the maintainer can just close or
> >>ignore
> >>the bug as invalid
On Sat, Mar 13, 2004 at 02:22:41AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Then after a time, either when he agrees or he is being unreasonable,
> > you bring the issue before the technical comittee, which can override
> > the maintainer if he is being wr
On Sat, Mar 13, 2004 at 02:22:41AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Then after a time, either when he agrees or he is being unreasonable,
> > you bring the issue before the technical comittee, which can override
> > the maintainer if he is being wrong
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Then after a time, either when he agrees or he is being unreasonable,
> you bring the issue before the technical comittee, which can override
> the maintainer if he is being wrongly stubborn.
Except that the Technical Committee does *not* have the right t
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 07:17:59PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I don't understand you. You claim that all the packages in non-free
> > should go, and when i point you out a method on how to do that, you
> > refuse to do that and speak bureaucr
On Sat, Mar 13, 2004 at 02:22:41AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Then after a time, either when he agrees or he is being unreasonable,
> > you bring the issue before the technical comittee, which can override
> > the maintainer if he is being wr
On 2004-03-12 22:49:26 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 12:02:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
It seems reasonable to ask whether the maintainer can just close or
ignore
the bug as invalid before N people file M bugs against non-free with
apparent replacements in
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Then after a time, either when he agrees or he is being unreasonable,
> you bring the issue before the technical comittee, which can override
> the maintainer if he is being wrongly stubborn.
Except that the Technical Committee does *not* have the right t
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 07:17:59PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I don't understand you. You claim that all the packages in non-free
> > should go, and when i point you out a method on how to do that, you
> > refuse to do that and speak bureaucr
On 2004-03-12 22:49:26 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 12:02:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
It seems reasonable to ask whether the maintainer can just close or
ignore
the bug as invalid before N people file M bugs against non-free with
apparent replacements in m
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't understand you. You claim that all the packages in non-free
> should go, and when i point you out a method on how to do that, you
> refuse to do that and speak bureaucrasy.
I'm saying that we don't have any policy to permit anyone but the
maintain
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't understand you. You claim that all the packages in non-free
> should go, and when i point you out a method on how to do that, you
> refuse to do that and speak bureaucrasy.
I'm saying that we don't have any policy to permit anyone but the
maintain
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 12:02:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-03-12 10:36:58 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:24:38AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> >>Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>>Did you fill a bug report against mpg123 aski
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 12:02:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-03-12 10:36:58 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:24:38AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> >>Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>>Did you fill a bug report against mpg123 aski
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 03:34:45PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> >One of the good things about Debian is that we don't have some
> >particular
> >person culling everything they happen to think is pointless.
> One of the bad things about Debian is that we apparently have to
> resort to a GR to cull point
On 2004-03-12 13:01:31 + Anthony Towns
wrote:
Perhaps. But you're looking at this wrong: the question is whether the
package can be replaced effectively enough to convince the maintainer
that it's not worth keeping around.
Sure, but that requires a different approach to simply pointing o
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 03:34:45PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> >One of the good things about Debian is that we don't have some
> >particular
> >person culling everything they happen to think is pointless.
> One of the bad things about Debian is that we apparently have to
> resort to a GR to cull point
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 12:02:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> It seems reasonable to ask whether the maintainer can just close or
> ignore the bug as invalid before N people file M bugs against non-free
> with apparent replacements in main.
Perhaps. But you're looking at this wrong: the question is
On 2004-03-12 13:01:31 + Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Perhaps. But you're looking at this wrong: the question is whether the
package can be replaced effectively enough to convince the maintainer
that it's not worth keeping around.
Sure, but that requires a different approach to si
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 12:02:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> It seems reasonable to ask whether the maintainer can just close or
> ignore the bug as invalid before N people file M bugs against non-free
> with apparent replacements in main.
Perhaps. But you're looking at this wrong: the question is
On 2004-03-12 10:36:58 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:24:38AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Did you fill a bug report against mpg123 asking for just that ?
Is it a bug? Currently, there is no sense in my m
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:24:38AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Did you fill a bug report against mpg123 asking for just that ?
>
> Is it a bug? Currently, there is no sense in my mind in which
> "unnecessarly in non-free" constitutes a bug.
On 2004-03-12 10:36:58 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:24:38AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Did you fill a bug report against mpg123 asking for just that ?
Is it a bug? Currently, there is no sense in my mind
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:24:38AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Did you fill a bug report against mpg123 asking for just that ?
>
> Is it a bug? Currently, there is no sense in my mind in which
> "unnecessarly in non-free" constitutes a bug.
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 00:33:37 +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On 2004-03-11 19:20:41 + Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> non-free.org is vapourware, and god know what standards of quality
>> it shall have; Debian does have a certain reputation for quality
>> that pure
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 00:33:37 +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On 2004-03-11 19:20:41 + Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> non-free.org is vapourware, and god know what standards of quality
>> it shall have; Debian does have a certain reputation for quality
>> that pure
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 12:33:37AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Having just returned from a LUG meeting where I think I was the only
> DD present, I can tell you exactly what at least one former user
> thinks our "certain reputation for quality" is. :-/
And which distribution does that user use now? G
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 12:33:37AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Having just returned from a LUG meeting where I think I was the only
> DD present, I can tell you exactly what at least one former user
> thinks our "certain reputation for quality" is. :-/
And which distribution does that user use now? G
On 2004-03-11 19:20:41 + Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
non-free.org is vapourware, and god know what standards of
quality it shall have; Debian does have a certain reputation
for quality that purely hypothetical organizations have difficulty
in matching.
Having just
On 2004-03-11 19:20:41 + Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
non-free.org is vapourware, and god know what standards of
quality it shall have; Debian does have a certain reputation
for quality that purely hypothetical organizations have difficulty
in matching.
Having just ret
On 10 Mar 2004 11:25:51 -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Necessary for what purpose?
> We can work out the details of what is the standard of necessity. I
> already gave some suggestions that I might accept: hardware drivers
> fo
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Did you fill a bug report against mpg123 asking for just that ?
Is it a bug? Currently, there is no sense in my mind in which
"unnecessarly in non-free" constitutes a bug. We have no policy, of
any kind, which says that only necessary things should be
On 10 Mar 2004 11:25:51 -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Necessary for what purpose?
> We can work out the details of what is the standard of necessity. I
> already gave some suggestions that I might accept: hardware drivers
> fo
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Did you fill a bug report against mpg123 asking for just that ?
Is it a bug? Currently, there is no sense in my mind in which
"unnecessarly in non-free" constitutes a bug. We have no policy, of
any kind, which says that only necessary things should be
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 06:56:03PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> So why is mpg123 in the non-free area anymore? Is anyone willing to
> say it's necessary? And if not, why didn't it get dropped sooner?
It's necessary for Asterisk music-on-hold, because mpg321 can't resample its
output. The
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 06:56:03PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> So why is mpg123 in the non-free area anymore? Is anyone willing to
> say it's necessary? And if not, why didn't it get dropped sooner?
It's necessary for Asterisk music-on-hold, because mpg321 can't resample its
output. The
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:29:34PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
>
> > On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 09:36:52PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > > See, there you go again. It's not part of the Debian distribution;
> > > > but it's certainly part of the Debian projec
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 06:56:03PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I'm referring to the sub threads where people ask what non-free has that
> > anyone needs.
>
> Oh, I figure they're just ignorant--and likely to be unaware of what
> vrms would sa
Anthony Towns writes:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 09:36:52PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > See, there you go again. It's not part of the Debian distribution;
> > > but it's certainly part of the Debian project. Saying categorically and
> > > without clarification that non-free isn't part
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:29:34PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 09:36:52PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > > See, there you go again. It's not part of the Debian distribution;
> > > > but it's certainly part o
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 06:56:03PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I'm referring to the sub threads where people ask what non-free has that
> > anyone needs.
>
> Oh, I figure they're just ignorant--and likely to be unaware of what
> vrms would sa
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 09:36:52PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > See, there you go again. It's not part of the Debian distribution;
> > but it's certainly part of the Debian project. Saying categorically and
> > without clarification that non-free isn't part of "Debian" is exactly
> > as b
Anthony Towns writes:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:26:17AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Maybe i am stupid or something. Please spell the exact nature of the
> > > compromise out for me again, and tell me how i am violating it.
> > The compro
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 09:36:52PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > See, there you go again. It's not part of the Debian distribution;
> > > but it's certainly part of the Debian project. Saying categorically and
> > > without clarification that
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:26:17AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Maybe i am stupid or something. Please spell the exact nature of the
> > compromise out for me again, and tell me how i am violating it.
> The compromise was: "non-free can be on the
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 09:36:52PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > See, there you go again. It's not part of the Debian distribution;
> > but it's certainly part of the Debian project. Saying categorically and
> > without clarification that non-free isn't part of "Debian" is exactly
> > as b
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:26:17AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Maybe i am stupid or something. Please spell the exact nature of the
> > > compromise out for me again, and tell me how i am violating
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:26:17AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Maybe i am stupid or something. Please spell the exact nature of the
> > compromise out for me again, and tell me how i am violating it.
> The compromise was: "non-free can be on the
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm referring to the sub threads where people ask what non-free has that
> anyone needs.
Oh, I figure they're just ignorant--and likely to be unaware of what
vrms would say on their own system.
Incidentally, so it was recently pointed out to me that I
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 12:59:20PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> I have heard similar statements from other people who support the
> removal of non-free from the Debian archive. So who is it that fits
> your description?
I'm referring to the sub threads where people ask what non-free has t
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm referring to the sub threads where people ask what non-free has that
> anyone needs.
Oh, I figure they're just ignorant--and likely to be unaware of what
vrms would say on their own system.
Incidentally, so it was recently pointed out to me that I
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 12:59:20PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> I have heard similar statements from other people who support the
> removal of non-free from the Debian archive. So who is it that fits
> your description?
I'm referring to the sub threads where people ask what non-free has t
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And i expect in future you to give back the same courtesy, and to
> distinguish from context the different meaning that are put in the word
> debian, be it the debian distribution, the debian project, the debian
> infrastructure, ..., instead of insisting
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Vrms reports a number of packages on my systems; the ones that I use
> ("need") frequently are ilisp, mpg123, jdk1.1, scsh, and xanim.
After performing a vote from the ilisp developers, I've change the
license. ilisp is now DFSG-free.
> It may not be good for them in
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 12:00:20PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Again, we were not speaking the same language, i always believed that
> > when you spoke about compromise, it was about a compromise between the
> > two opposing opinions on the no
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [a] most of the people who advocate dumping non-free do not have a
> personal need for any of it, and
Vrms reports a number of packages on my systems; the ones that I use
("need") frequently are ilisp, mpg123, jdk1.1, scsh, and xanim.
I have heard simila
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And i expect in future you to give back the same courtesy, and to
> distinguish from context the different meaning that are put in the word
> debian, be it the debian distribution, the debian project, the debian
> infrastructure, ..., instead of insisting
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Vrms reports a number of packages on my systems; the ones that I use
> ("need") frequently are ilisp, mpg123, jdk1.1, scsh, and xanim.
After performing a vote from the ilisp developers, I've change the
license. ilisp is now DFSG-free.
> It may not be good for them in
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Again, we were not speaking the same language, i always believed that
> > when you spoke about compromise, it was about a compromise between the
> > two opposing opinions on the non-free issue.
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 12:00:20PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, B
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 12:00:20PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Again, we were not speaking the same language, i always believed that
> > when you spoke about compromise, it was about a compromise between the
> > two opposing opinions on the no
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Again, we were not speaking the same language, i always believed that
> when you spoke about compromise, it was about a compromise between the
> two opposing opinions on the non-free issue.
I have spoken of both. The context has made it clear in each cas
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:26:17AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> The compromise was: "non-free can be on the FTP site, as long as
> everybody knows and agrees that it's not part of Debian".
You'd think that if everyone were supposed to know and agree to this that
there's be some kind of exp
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:26:17AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Maybe i am stupid or something. Please spell the exact nature of the
> > compromise out for me again, and tell me how i am violating it.
>
> The compromise was: "non-free can be o
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Maybe i am stupid or something. Please spell the exact nature of the
> compromise out for me again, and tell me how i am violating it.
The compromise was: "non-free can be on the FTP site, as long as
everybody knows and agrees that it's not part of Debian
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Necessary for what purpose?
You seem to be saying that there are lots of necessary things in
non-free. It's the pro-non-free people who have been saying how
necessary it is. I'm assuming that you have some sense of what that
word means for you, and that
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Necessary for what purpose?
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:25:51AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> You seem to be saying that there are lots of necessary things in
> non-free. It's the pro-non-free people who have been saying how
> necessary it is. I'
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [a] most of the people who advocate dumping non-free do not have a
> personal need for any of it, and
Vrms reports a number of packages on my systems; the ones that I use
("need") frequently are ilisp, mpg123, jdk1.1, scsh, and xanim.
I have heard simila
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Again, we were not speaking the same language, i always believed that
> > when you spoke about compromise, it was about a compromise between the
> > two opposing opinions on the non-free issue.
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 12:00:20PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, B
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Again, we were not speaking the same language, i always believed that
> when you spoke about compromise, it was about a compromise between the
> two opposing opinions on the non-free issue.
I have spoken of both. The context has made it clear in each cas
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:26:17AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> The compromise was: "non-free can be on the FTP site, as long as
> everybody knows and agrees that it's not part of Debian".
You'd think that if everyone were supposed to know and agree to this that
there's be some kind of exp
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:26:17AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Maybe i am stupid or something. Please spell the exact nature of the
> > compromise out for me again, and tell me how i am violating it.
>
> The compromise was: "non-free can be o
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Maybe i am stupid or something. Please spell the exact nature of the
> compromise out for me again, and tell me how i am violating it.
The compromise was: "non-free can be on the FTP site, as long as
everybody knows and agrees that it's not part of Debian
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Necessary for what purpose?
You seem to be saying that there are lots of necessary things in
non-free. It's the pro-non-free people who have been saying how
necessary it is. I'm assuming that you have some sense of what that
word means for you, and that
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Necessary for what purpose?
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:25:51AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> You seem to be saying that there are lots of necessary things in
> non-free. It's the pro-non-free people who have been saying how
> necessary it is. I'
A couple of small points that seem interesting to me:
On 2004-03-10 07:33:06 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
But we already have the possibility to do this. The technical comitte
has the power to override the maintainers decision, it is just that
upto
now, nobody cared enough t
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 09:21:43PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Does this mean that you would support the removal of all of non-free
> with the exception of those packages necessary to support closed
> hardware?
Why is closed hardware so special? What about our Japanese, Chinese and
Korean
A couple of small points that seem interesting to me:
On 2004-03-10 07:33:06 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
But we already have the possibility to do this. The technical comitte
has the power to override the maintainers decision, it is just that
upto
now, nobody cared enough to ta
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 09:21:43PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Does this mean that you would support the removal of all of non-free
> with the exception of those packages necessary to support closed
> hardware?
Why is closed hardware so special? What about our Japanese, Chinese and
Korean
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 11:41:31AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > The compromise to which that message referred is the compromise
> > > embodied in the social contract.
> >
> > Oh ? I thought this is the one you are wanting to drop.
>
> You'r
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 06:50:35PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> I think that's a decent objective. But we have historically had
> things in non-free even when we did have alternatives. Things that go
> in main have to meet the DFSG, and the maintainers say-so is not
> enough to satisfy th
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 11:41:31AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > The compromise to which that message referred is the compromise
> > > embodied in the social contract.
> >
> > Oh ? I thought this is the one you are wanting to drop.
>
> You'r
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 06:50:35PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> I think that's a decent objective. But we have historically had
> things in non-free even when we did have alternatives. Things that go
> in main have to meet the DFSG, and the maintainers say-so is not
> enough to satisfy th
> > You keep talking like there's only one possible valid way of looking
> > at things -- and that's not beside the point, it's the main obstacle
> > preventing us from talking about what the point is.
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 06:50:35PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> I'm interested in hearin
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You keep talking like there's only one possible valid way of looking
> at things -- and that's not beside the point, it's the main obstacle
> preventing us from talking about what the point is.
I'm interested in hearing your way of looking at things, not
> > You keep talking like there's only one possible valid way of looking
> > at things -- and that's not beside the point, it's the main obstacle
> > preventing us from talking about what the point is.
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 06:50:35PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> I'm interested in hearin
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You keep talking like there's only one possible valid way of looking
> at things -- and that's not beside the point, it's the main obstacle
> preventing us from talking about what the point is.
I'm interested in hearing your way of looking at things, not
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > If you can't even acknowledge that other opinions exist, I can easily
> > see why you're having so much trouble talking about your reasons for
> > your opinions.
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 12:42:35PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> I'm happy to believe
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If you can't even acknowledge that other opinions exist, I can easily
> see why you're having so much trouble talking about your reasons for
> your opinions.
I'm happy to believe that there are other ways to achieve the goal,
but you haven't given any tha
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 11:43:58AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> >From two places:
>
> 1) You haven't suggested anything to do, and
> 2) You proposed an amendment which is a "do nothing" resolution.
The only way this makes any sense is if by "do nothing" you mean "do
nothing to get rid of
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > I'm saying that the rationale -- where this GR only scratches the surface
> > > of the changes which would need to be done to satisfy the rationale --
> > > would lead us into bigger problems.
>
> On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 08:37:55PM -0800, Thomas Bushn
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The compromise to which that message referred is the compromise
> > embodied in the social contract.
>
> Oh ? I thought this is the one you are wanting to drop.
You're losing track of the thread. I said the compromise is already
getting violated by yo
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > If you can't even acknowledge that other opinions exist, I can easily
> > see why you're having so much trouble talking about your reasons for
> > your opinions.
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 12:42:35PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> I'm happy to believe
1 - 100 of 502 matches
Mail list logo
