Seconded.
> 4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
>
>4.1. Powers
>
> Together, the Developers may:
> 1. Appoint or recall the Project Leader.
> 2. Amend this constitution, provided they agree with a 3:1 majority.
> 3. Override any decision by the Projec
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I hearby second this proposal.
Joe Nahmias
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
- -- Start of PGP signed section.
> Hi folks,
>
> Here is my amended proposal, further changed by incorporating
> Branden's suggestions. Would the sponsors
Seconded.
> 4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
>
>4.1. Powers
>
> Together, the Developers may:
> 1. Appoint or recall the Project Leader.
> 2. Amend this constitution, provided they agree with a 3:1 majority.
> 3. Override any decision by the Projec
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I hearby second this proposal.
Joe Nahmias
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
- -- Start of PGP signed section.
> Hi folks,
>
> Here is my amended proposal, further changed by incorporating
> Branden's suggestions. Would the sponsors
On Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 11:22:03PM -0400, Neil Roeth wrote:
> Why is my mail to this list encountering huge delays?
You weren't alone:
http://murphy.debian.org/mrtg/murphy.queue-in.html
--
G. Branden Robinson|Beware of and eschew pompous
Debian GNU/Linux
On Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 11:22:03PM -0400, Neil Roeth wrote:
> Why is my mail to this list encountering huge delays?
You weren't alone:
http://murphy.debian.org/mrtg/murphy.queue-in.html
--
G. Branden Robinson|Beware of and eschew pompous
Debian GNU/Linux
On Sep 24, Neil Roeth ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Manoj,
>
> Are you going to post another version of the proposal reflecting what seems
> to
> be the consensus, i.e., allowing supersession, but not modification?
Why is my mail to this list encountering huge delays? I sent an email on
Mon
On Sep 24, Neil Roeth ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Manoj,
>
> Are you going to post another version of the proposal reflecting what seems to
> be the consensus, i.e., allowing supersession, but not modification?
Why is my mail to this list encountering huge delays? I sent an email on
Monday,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Manoj,
Are you going to post another version of the proposal reflecting what seems to
be the consensus, i.e., allowing supersession, but not modification?
- --
Neil Roeth
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Proce
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Manoj,
Are you going to post another version of the proposal reflecting what seems to
be the consensus, i.e., allowing supersession, but not modification?
- --
Neil Roeth
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Proce
I'd be happy to second an amended proposal reflecting what seems to be the
consensus, i.e., allowing supersession, but not modification. Are you going to
post another version of the proposal reflecting that?
I'd be happy to second an amended proposal reflecting what seems to be the
consensus, i.e., allowing supersession, but not modification. Are you going to
post another version of the proposal reflecting that?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble?
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 07:43:49PM +0100, Oliver Elphick wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-09-22 at 04:59, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > Here is my amended proposal, further changed by incorporating
> > Branden's suggestions. Would the sponsors of my proposal approve of
> > this changed
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 07:43:49PM +0100, Oliver Elphick wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-09-22 at 04:59, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > Here is my amended proposal, further changed by incorporating
> > Branden's suggestions. Would the sponsors of my proposal approve of
> > this changed
On Mon, 2003-09-22 at 04:59, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Here is my amended proposal, further changed by incorporating
> Branden's suggestions. Would the sponsors of my proposal approve of
> this changed wording? (New sponsors are also welcome for second this
> modified propos
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes, it was. I did include the supercession language later on
> in the document, but forgot it at the top of clause 5.
This version also looks fine modulo one spelling nit: forms of
"supersede" are traditionally spelled with Ss, not Cs.
--
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 01:44:37AM -0400, Simon Law wrote:
> 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.
>
On Mon, 2003-09-22 at 04:59, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Here is my amended proposal, further changed by incorporating
> Branden's suggestions. Would the sponsors of my proposal approve of
> this changed wording? (New sponsors are also welcome for second this
> modified propos
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes, it was. I did include the supercession language later on
> in the document, but forgot it at the top of clause 5.
This version also looks fine modulo one spelling nit: forms of
"supersede" are traditionally spelled with Ss, not Cs.
--
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 01:44:37AM -0400, Simon Law wrote:
> 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.
>
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
Hi,
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 00:52:13 -0400, Simon Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 10:59:31PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Here is my amended proposal, further changed by incorporating
>> Branden's suggestions. Would the sponsors of my proposal approve of
>> this changed
Seconded.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 10:59:31PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Here is my amended proposal, further changed by incorporating
> Branden's suggestions. Would the sponsors of my proposal approve of
> this changed wording?
Hi folks,
Here is my amended proposal, further changed by incorporating
Branden's suggestions. Would the sponsors of my proposal approve of
this changed wording? (New sponsors are also welcome for second this
modified proposal).
manoj
==
Hi folks,
Here is the Current proposal that has receive sponsors:
==
4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
4.1. Powers
Together, the Developers may:
1. Appoint or recall the Project Lea
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
Hi,
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 00:52:13 -0400, Simon Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 10:59:31PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Here is my amended proposal, further changed by incorporating
>> Branden's suggestions. Would the sponsors of my proposal approve of
>> this changed
Seconded.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 10:59:31PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Here is my amended proposal, further changed by incorporating
> Branden's suggestions. Would the sponsors of my proposal approve of
> this changed wording?
Hi folks,
Here is my amended proposal, further changed by incorporating
Branden's suggestions. Would the sponsors of my proposal approve of
this changed wording? (New sponsors are also welcome for second this
modified proposal).
manoj
==
Hi folks,
Here is the Current proposal that has receive sponsors:
==
4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
4.1. Powers
Together, the Developers may:
1. Appoint or recall the Project Lea
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
I have some editorial amendments to propose. Unlike amendment BR1,
these do *not* run counter to the proposer's intentions as I understand
them.
> 4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
>
>4.1. Powers
>
> Together, the Developers may:
> 1. Appoint or recall the
I have some editorial amendments to propose. Unlike amendment BR1,
these do *not* run counter to the proposer's intentions as I understand
them.
> 4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
>
>4.1. Powers
>
> Together, the Developers may:
> 1. Appoint or recall the
34 matches
Mail list logo
