On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 11:41:34AM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> --
>
> Thus, I propose that the Debian project resolve that the process
> defined in GR Proposal 2 will be applied *only* for the future content
> of debian-private mailing list.
>
> --
>
> To me, it's a second option that would mak
Scripsit Adrian von Bidder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Friday 18 November 2005 15.41, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
>> Thus, I propose that the Debian project resolve that the process
>> defined in GR Proposal 2 will be applied *only* for the future content
>> of debian-private mailing list.
> Q on procedure:
On Friday 18 November 2005 15.41, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> --
>
> Thus, I propose that the Debian project resolve that the process
> defined in GR Proposal 2 will be applied *only* for the future content
> of debian-private mailing list.
>
> --
Q on procedure: will there be a single vote with GR 2 an
Em Sáb, 2005-11-19 às 12:29 +1000, Anthony Towns escreveu:
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 11:41:34AM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> > --
> > Thus, I propose that the Debian project resolve that the process
> > defined in GR Proposal 2 will be applied *only* for the future content
> > of debian-private mai
On 11:41 Fri 18 Nov 2005, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> Just to formalize what I've already said...
>
> I think this should be considered for future -private content even if
> the GR Proposal 2 (which I second) is rejected, considering one argument
> against it is that people didn't expect to have it's pr
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 11:41:34AM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> --
> Thus, I propose that the Debian project resolve that the process
> defined in GR Proposal 2 will be applied *only* for the future content
> of debian-private mailing list.
> --
So obviously as proposer of the origianl GR, I'm not
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Daniel Ruoso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Just to formalize what I've already said...
>
> I think this should be considered for future -private content even if
> the GR Proposal 2 (which I second) is rejected, considering one argument
> against it is
On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 12:36 -0600, Greg Norris wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 11:41:34AM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> > Just to formalize what I've already said...
> >
> > I think this should be considered for future -private content even if
> > the GR Proposal 2 (which I second) is rejected, co
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 11:41:34AM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> Just to formalize what I've already said...
>
> I think this should be considered for future -private content even if
> the GR Proposal 2 (which I second) is rejected, considering one argument
> against it is that people didn't expect
Just to formalize what I've already said...
I think this should be considered for future -private content even if
the GR Proposal 2 (which I second) is rejected, considering one argument
against it is that people didn't expect to have it's private posts
revealed.
--
Thus, I propose that the Debi
10 matches
Mail list logo
