On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 05:59:06PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Note that Anthony Towns has also argued against the cosmetic changes
> appearing on a separate ballot.
So, there are two cases: sometimes you want issues to be voted on in
separate ballots; sometimes you want them to be voted on in t
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 05:59:06PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Note that Anthony Towns has also argued against the cosmetic changes
> appearing on a separate ballot.
So, there are two cases: sometimes you want issues to be voted on in
separate ballots; sometimes you want them to be voted on in t
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 06:39:07PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > If so, what does that mean if something other than exactly
> > this these two proposals win on one or the other of the ballots?
>
> I think the idea is that we do one of them first and once that's done,
> decide how to proc
On Jan 12, 2004, at 12:57, Raul Miller wrote:
I hope developers in general are smart enough to handle this one. If
clause 5 is dropped, then obviously the edits for it will be, too.
So does this mean that the edits go on a separate ballot from his other
proposal?
I believe that is the plan.
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 06:39:07PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > If so, what does that mean if something other than exactly
> > this these two proposals win on one or the other of the ballots?
>
> I think the idea is that we do one of them first and once that's done,
> decide how to proc
> > But that would better be expressed as two proposals: one with both
> > the major and minor changes, the other with only the minor changes.
> > He needn't even express the minor changes in both proposals if the
> > one with the major changes was expressed as a delta against the other
> > proposa
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 09:21:41AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> We could end up with rather a lot of options though;
>
> Editorial changes;
> Editorial changes + Andrew's remove non-free proposal
> Andrew's remove non-free proposal only
> Editorial changes + Raul's clarify non-free proposal
> Ra
On Jan 12, 2004, at 12:57, Raul Miller wrote:
I hope developers in general are smart enough to handle this one. If
clause 5 is dropped, then obviously the edits for it will be, too.
So does this mean that the edits go on a separate ballot from his other
proposal?
I believe that is the plan.
If s
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 03:29:46PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 09:20:39PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > I actually (mis)read you that you wanted Asuffield to combine the two
> > proposals into one, which I was opposed against. If it is possible to
> > put them both on the
> > But that would better be expressed as two proposals: one with both
> > the major and minor changes, the other with only the minor changes.
> > He needn't even express the minor changes in both proposals if the
> > one with the major changes was expressed as a delta against the other
> > proposa
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 09:21:41AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> We could end up with rather a lot of options though;
>
> Editorial changes;
> Editorial changes + Andrew's remove non-free proposal
> Andrew's remove non-free proposal only
> Editorial changes + Raul's clarify non-free proposal
> Ra
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 03:29:46PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 09:20:39PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > I actually (mis)read you that you wanted Asuffield to combine the two
> > proposals into one, which I was opposed against. If it is possible to
> > put them both on the
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 10:37:42AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 02:47:17AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 03:00:10AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > > > The whole point of this proposal was to vote on the non-ideology stuff
> > > > (i.e. what Andrew j
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 09:20:39PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> I actually (mis)read you that you wanted Asuffield to combine the two
> proposals into one, which I was opposed against. If it is possible to
> put them both on the same ballot so that it's clear what's up (and
> Andrew thinks it's al
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 03:12:17PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> AJ was saying that editorial changes belong on the same ballot as the
> more substantial changes, and that putting them on separate ballots was
> a bad idea.
Well, I let you vote-gurus hash that out.
I actually (mis)read you that you
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 03:00:10AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> The whole point of this proposal was to vote on the non-ideology stuff
> (i.e. what Andrew just presented, note the 'part 1: editorial' in the
> subject) apart from the big flamage question (the non-free stuff). Aj
> argued heavily fo
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 10:37:42AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 02:47:17AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 03:00:10AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > > > The whole point of this proposal was to vote on the non-ideology stuff
> > > > (i.e. what Andrew j
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 09:20:39PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> I actually (mis)read you that you wanted Asuffield to combine the two
> proposals into one, which I was opposed against. If it is possible to
> put them both on the same ballot so that it's clear what's up (and
> Andrew thinks it's al
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 03:12:17PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> AJ was saying that editorial changes belong on the same ballot as the
> more substantial changes, and that putting them on separate ballots was
> a bad idea.
Well, I let you vote-gurus hash that out.
I actually (mis)read you that you
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 03:00:10AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> The whole point of this proposal was to vote on the non-ideology stuff
> (i.e. what Andrew just presented, note the 'part 1: editorial' in the
> subject) apart from the big flamage question (the non-free stuff). Aj
> argued heavily fo
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 06:17:27PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> I am *not* soliciting seconds at this time. Just bug fixes.
In that case, you might want to make explicit that changes to the social
contract which happen after some point in time [perhaps use y2000, or
the passing of the amended c
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 06:13:49PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> There are a few things in there that I like. If you are willing to
> propose a version which combines this with your other proposal, I'll be
> happy to update mine, yet again, with the parts I like.
I will and have been accepting sugg
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 02:57:51AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 12:26:19AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01192.html
> > snipped>
> >
> > Andrew, I love it. :-) Every word.
> >
> > This is so much more
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 10:58:33PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > So his other proposal is still valid and there's no point in recombining
> > the two.
>
> Even with the split, updating the social contract with a new part 5 would
> mean that we have a part 5, which would cancel the effect of Andrew
On Jan 11, 2004, at 22:58, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Are you talking back in the year 2000? That split would have made
> > sense, back then, because of the limitations of our voting system
> > back then.
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 11:54:46AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> No, he's talking several
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 06:17:27PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> I am *not* soliciting seconds at this time. Just bug fixes.
In that case, you might want to make explicit that changes to the social
contract which happen after some point in time [perhaps use y2000, or
the passing of the amended c
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 06:13:49PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> There are a few things in there that I like. If you are willing to
> propose a version which combines this with your other proposal, I'll be
> happy to update mine, yet again, with the parts I like.
I will and have been accepting sugg
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 02:57:51AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 12:26:19AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01192.html
> > snipped>
> >
> > Andrew, I love it. :-) Every word.
> >
> > This is so much more
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 10:58:33PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > So his other proposal is still valid and there's no point in recombining
> > the two.
>
> Even with the split, updating the social contract with a new part 5 would
> mean that we have a part 5, which would cancel the effect of Andrew
On Jan 11, 2004, at 22:58, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Are you talking back in the year 2000? That split would have made
> > sense, back then, because of the limitations of our voting system
> > back then.
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 11:54:46AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> No, he's talking several
On Jan 11, 2004, at 22:58, Raul Miller wrote:
Are you talking back in the year 2000? That split would have made
sense,
back then, because of the limitations of our voting system back then.
No, he's talking several months ago. It's all in the archives of -vote.
Even with the split, updating
On Jan 11, 2004, at 22:58, Raul Miller wrote:
Are you talking back in the year 2000? That split would have made
sense,
back then, because of the limitations of our voting system back then.
No, he's talking several months ago. It's all in the archives of -vote.
Even with the split, updating the s
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 02:47:17AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 03:00:10AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > > The whole point of this proposal was to vote on the non-ideology stuff
> > > (i.e. what Andrew just presented, note the 'part 1: editorial' in the
> > > subject) apa
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 02:47:17AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 03:00:10AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > > The whole point of this proposal was to vote on the non-ideology stuff
> > > (i.e. what Andrew just presented, note the 'part 1: editorial' in the
> > > subject) apa
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 12:26:19AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01192.html
> snipped>
>
> Andrew, I love it. :-) Every word.
>
> This is so much more important than "non-free or not". To me anyway.
In which case you might con
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 03:00:10AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > The whole point of this proposal was to vote on the non-ideology stuff
> > (i.e. what Andrew just presented, note the 'part 1: editorial' in the
> > subject) apart from the big flamage question (the non-free stuff). Aj
> > argued
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 12:26:19AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01192.html
> snipped>
>
> Andrew, I love it. :-) Every word.
>
> This is so much more important than "non-free or not". To me anyway.
In which case you might con
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 03:00:10AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > The whole point of this proposal was to vote on the non-ideology stuff
> > (i.e. what Andrew just presented, note the 'part 1: editorial' in the
> > subject) apart from the big flamage question (the non-free stuff). Aj
> > argued
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01192.html
snipped>
Andrew, I love it. :-) Every word.
This is so much more important than "non-free or not". To me anyway.
--Nathanael Nerode
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01192.html
snipped>
Andrew, I love it. :-) Every word.
This is so much more important than "non-free or not". To me anyway.
--Nathanael Nerode
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Troubl
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 06:13:49PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Note: as you've currently proposed this, it's not clear whether you
> > intended to offer it as an alternative to your other proposal or not.
> >
> > There are a few things in there that I like. If you are willing to
> > propose a v
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 06:13:49PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Note: as you've currently proposed this, it's not clear whether you
> > intended to offer it as an alternative to your other proposal or not.
> >
> > There are a few things in there that I like. If you are willing to
> > propose a v
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 06:13:49PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Note: as you've currently proposed this, it's not clear whether you
> intended to offer it as an alternative to your other proposal or not.
>
> There are a few things in there that I like. If you are willing to
> propose a version whi
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 06:13:49PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Note: as you've currently proposed this, it's not clear whether you
> intended to offer it as an alternative to your other proposal or not.
>
> There are a few things in there that I like. If you are willing to
> propose a version whi
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 10:51:38PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> This got delayed a bit longer than I was hoping, but I think this
> covers everything. Changes from the second draft are at the end. I'll
> propose a GR based around this in a few days.
And I just sent a modified version of my own
This got delayed a bit longer than I was hoping, but I think this
covers everything. Changes from the second draft are at the end. I'll
propose a GR based around this in a few days.
"spurious" here means that I consider the offending item to add
nothing but words (ie, it doesn't mean anything, an
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 10:51:38PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> This got delayed a bit longer than I was hoping, but I think this
> covers everything. Changes from the second draft are at the end. I'll
> propose a GR based around this in a few days.
And I just sent a modified version of my own
This got delayed a bit longer than I was hoping, but I think this
covers everything. Changes from the second draft are at the end. I'll
propose a GR based around this in a few days.
"spurious" here means that I consider the offending item to add
nothing but words (ie, it doesn't mean anything, an
48 matches
Mail list logo
