On Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 04:16:06PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 12:29:40PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > ==
> >
> > 4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
> >
> >4.1. Powe
On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 12:29:40PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> ==
>
> 4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
>
>4.1. Powers
>
> Together, the Developers may:
> 1. Appoint or recall the Proj
On Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 04:16:06PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 12:29:40PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > ==
> >
> > 4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
> >
> >4.1. Powe
On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 12:29:40PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> ==
>
> 4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
>
>4.1. Powers
>
> Together, the Developers may:
> 1. Appoint or recall the Proj
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Grrr, I seconded the wrong one before...
I hearby second the following proposal.
Joe Nahmias
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Here is a spell checked version, and also one that removes the
> modify clause for the f
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 amendment.
Joe Nahmias
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Branden Robinson wrote:
> I propose the following amendment:
>
> - 5.2 The Foundation Documents are the works entitled "Debian
> - Social Contract" and "Debian Free Software Guid
-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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Grrr, I seconded the wrong one before...
I hearby second the following proposal.
Joe Nahmias
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Here is a spell checked version, and also one that removes the
> modify clause for the f
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
On Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 04:16:06PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 12:29:40PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > ==
> >
> > 4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
> >
> >4.1. Powe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I hearby second this amendment.
Joe Nahmias
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Branden Robinson wrote:
> I propose the following amendment:
>
> - 5.2 The Foundation Documents are the works entitled "Debian
> - Social Contract" and "Debian Free Software Guid
-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 Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 04:16:06PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 12:29:40PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > ==
> >
> > 4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
> >
> >4.1. Powe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 12:29:40PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> ==
>>
>> 4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or electi
I hereby second the ammendment known as BR3
Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 12:29:40PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > ==
> >
> > 4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
> >
> >4.1. P
On Sun, 2003-09-28 at 12:06, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Uhh, I have lost track. I need to go into the archive ans see
> who has seconded what, unless someone beats me to it.
I based this upon your message here:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200309/msg00036.html
> B
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 12:29:40PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> ==
>>
>> 4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or electi
I hereby second the ammendment known as BR3
Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 12:29:40PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > ==
> >
> > 4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
> >
> >4.1. P
On Sun, 2003-09-28 at 12:06, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Uhh, I have lost track. I need to go into the archive ans see
> who has seconded what, unless someone beats me to it.
I based this upon your message here:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200309/msg00036.html
> B
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 04:33:51 -0400, Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 04:55, Jochen Voss wrote:
>> I second the above amendment.
> Doesn't this mean the BR amendment now has enough seconds?
Uhh, I have lost track. I need to go into the archive ans s
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 04:33:51 -0400, Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 04:55, Jochen Voss wrote:
>> I second the above amendment.
> Doesn't this mean the BR amendment now has enough seconds?
Uhh, I have lost track. I need to go into the archive ans se
Hi,
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 04:55, Jochen Voss wrote:
> > I second the above amendment.
>
> Doesn't this mean the BR amendment now has enough seconds?
Probably, but we can't proceed until BR3 either has enough seconds, or it's
reasonably clear that it won't get them.
-
On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 04:33:51AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 04:55, Jochen Voss wrote:
>
> > I second the above amendment.
>
> Doesn't this mean the BR amendment now has enough seconds?
I hope so :-)
Jochen
--
http://seehuhn.de/
signature.asc
Description: Digita
Hi,
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 04:55, Jochen Voss wrote:
> > I second the above amendment.
>
> Doesn't this mean the BR amendment now has enough seconds?
Probably, but we can't proceed until BR3 either has enough seconds, or it's
reasonably clear that it won't get them.
-
On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 04:33:51AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 04:55, Jochen Voss wrote:
>
> > I second the above amendment.
>
> Doesn't this mean the BR amendment now has enough seconds?
I hope so :-)
Jochen
--
http://seehuhn.de/
signature.asc
Description: Digita
On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 04:55, Jochen Voss wrote:
> I second the above amendment.
Doesn't this mean the BR amendment now has enough seconds?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 04:55, Jochen Voss wrote:
> I second the above amendment.
Doesn't this mean the BR amendment now has enough seconds?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 04:11:35 +0300, Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 04:16:06PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>> I propose the following amendment:
>>
>> - 5.2 The Foundation Documents are the works entitled "Debian
>> - Social Contract" and "Debian Free Softw
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 04:11:35 +0300, Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 04:16:06PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>> I propose the following amendment:
>>
>> - 5.2 The Foundation Documents are the works entitled "Debian
>> - Social Contract" and "Debian Free Softw
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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 23, Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Here is a spell checked version, and also one that removes the
> modify clause for the foundation documents. So now we may issue,
> withdraw, and supersede these docum
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 Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 04:11:35AM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> Hmm, I've always thought of the DFSG as *part of* the Social Contract.
> The Social Contract says:
>As there are many definitions of free software, we include the
>guidelines we use to determine if software is "free" below.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 23, Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Here is a spell checked version, and also one that removes the
> modify clause for the foundation documents. So now we may issue,
> withdraw, and supersede these docum
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,
On Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 04:11:35AM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> Hmm, I've always thought of the DFSG as *part of* the Social Contract.
> The Social Contract says:
>As there are many definitions of free software, we include the
>guidelines we use to determine if software is "free" below.
On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 04:03:58PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> 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
On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 04:24:52PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I, too, would like to re-propose the General Resolution I proposed three
> years ago. (This is substantively the same, with only minor wording
> changes.)
>
> ==
Hi,
Branden Robinson wrote:
> - 5.2 The Foundation Documents are the works entitled "Debian
> - Social Contract" and "Debian Free Software Guidelines".
> + 5.2 The Foundation Document is the work entitled "Debian
> + Social Contract".
I disagree. Rationale: The DFSG doesn't codify
On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 04:03:58PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> 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
On Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 04:16:06PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> It occurs to me that there are some people who may wish to afford the
> Debian Social Contract the opportunity of a 25% minority veto, but not
> wish to extend this to the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
Last time I checked, the
On Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 04:16:06PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I propose the following amendment:
>
> - 5.2 The Foundation Documents are the works entitled "Debian
> - Social Contract" and "Debian Free Software Guidelines".
> + 5.2 The Foundation Document is the work entitled "Debia
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 16:16:06 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I propose the following amendment:
> - 5.2 The Foundation Documents are the works entitled "Debian
> - Social Contract" and "Debian Free Software Guidelines".
> + 5.2 The Foundation Document is the work entitled "De
On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 04:24:52PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I, too, would like to re-propose the General Resolution I proposed three
> years ago. (This is substantively the same, with only minor wording
> changes.)
>
> ==
On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 12:29:40PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Here is a spell checked version, and also one that removes the
> modify clause for the foundation documents. So now we may issue,
> withdraw, and supersede these documents, but not modify them in
> place.
>
>
Hi,
Branden Robinson wrote:
> - 5.2 The Foundation Documents are the works entitled "Debian
> - Social Contract" and "Debian Free Software Guidelines".
> + 5.2 The Foundation Document is the work entitled "Debian
> + Social Contract".
I disagree. Rationale: The DFSG doesn't codify
On Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 04:16:06PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> It occurs to me that there are some people who may wish to afford the
> Debian Social Contract the opportunity of a 25% minority veto, but not
> wish to extend this to the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
Last time I checked, the
On Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 04:16:06PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I propose the following amendment:
>
> - 5.2 The Foundation Documents are the works entitled "Debian
> - Social Contract" and "Debian Free Software Guidelines".
> + 5.2 The Foundation Document is the work entitled "Debia
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 16:16:06 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I propose the following amendment:
> - 5.2 The Foundation Documents are the works entitled "Debian
> - Social Contract" and "Debian Free Software Guidelines".
> + 5.2 The Foundation Document is the work entitled "De
On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 12:29:40PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Here is a spell checked version, and also one that removes the
> modify clause for the foundation documents. So now we may issue,
> withdraw, and supersede these documents, but not modify them in
> place.
>
>
-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 second Branden Robinson's amendment of
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
pgpufE2Ii0zmt.pgp
Description: PGP signature
I second Branden Robinson's amendment of
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 18:29, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Here is a spell checked version,
Not quite
...
> + 5.3 A Foundation Document requires a 3:1 super-majority for its
> + supercession. New Foundation Documents are issued and
This is still wro
On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 12:29:40PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> ==
>
> 4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
>
>4.1. Powers
>
> Together, the Developers may:
> 1. Appoint or recall the Proj
Hi folks,
[My first attempt to send this out does not seem to have made
it to the list]
Here is a spell checked version, and also one that removes the
modify clause for the foundation documents. So now we may issue,
withdraw, and supersede these documents, but not modify
On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 12:29:40PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> ==
>
> 4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
>
>4.1. Powers
>
> Together, the Developers may:
> 1. Appoint or recall the Proj
On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 18:29, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Here is a spell checked version,
Not quite
...
> + 5.3 A Foundation Document requires a 3:1 super-majority for its
> + supercession. New Foundation Documents are issued and
This is still wro
Hi folks,
[My first attempt to send this out does not seem to have made
it to the list]
Here is a spell checked version, and also one that removes the
modify clause for the foundation documents. So now we may issue,
withdraw, and supersede these documents, but not modify
Hi folks,
Here is a spell checked version, and also one that removes the
modify clause for the foundation documents. So now we may issue,
withdraw, and supersede these documents, but not modify them in
place.
==
4.
Hi folks,
Here is a spell checked version, and also one that removes the
modify clause for the foundation documents. So now we may issue,
withdraw, and supersede these documents, but not modify them in
place.
==
4.
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 guys,
This is the way I count it at the moment
My original Proposal:
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Simon Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron M. Ucko)
My proposal with a patch:
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Simon Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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
Hi guys,
This is the way I count it at the moment
My original Proposal:
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Simon Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron M. Ucko)
My proposal with a patch:
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Simon Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
i hereby second the proposal below.
-john
Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> ==
> 4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
>
>4.1. Powers
>
> Together, the Developers may:
> 1. Appoint or recall the Pr
On Thu, Sep 18, 2003 at 02:33:08PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> ==
> 4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
>
>4.1. Powers
>
> Together, the Developers may:
> 1. Appoint or recall the Project
On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 04:24:52PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I, too, would like to re-propose the General Resolution I proposed three
> years ago. (This is substantively the same, with only minor wording
> changes.)
>
> ==
i hereby second the proposal below.
-john
Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> ==
> 4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
>
>4.1. Powers
>
> Together, the Developers may:
> 1. Appoint or recall the Pr
On Thu, Sep 18, 2003 at 02:33:08PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> ==
> 4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
>
>4.1. Powers
>
> Together, the Developers may:
> 1. Appoint or recall the Project
On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 04:24:52PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I, too, would like to re-propose the General Resolution I proposed three
> years ago. (This is substantively the same, with only minor wording
> changes.)
>
> ==
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
On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 04:24:52PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> ==
> 4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
>
>4.1. Powers
>
> Together, the Developers may:
> 1. Appoint or recall the Project
On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 04:24:52PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> ==
> 4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
>
>4.1. Powers
>
> Together, the Developers may:
> 1. Appoint or recall the Project
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I, too, would like to re-propose the General Resolution I proposed three
> years ago. (This is substantively the same, with only minor wording
> changes.)
>
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I, too, would like to re-propose the General Resolution I proposed three
> years ago. (This is substantively the same, with only minor wording
> changes.)
>
>
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, too, would like to re-propose the General Resolution I proposed three
years ago. (This is substantively the same, with only minor wording
changes.)
==
4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
4.1. Powers
1 - 100 of 144 matches
Mail list logo
