Hello Manoj,
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 12:31:41PM -0600, Debian Project secretary wrote:
> Proposer: Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Seconds:1. Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 2. Kyle McMartin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 3. Clint Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Hello Manoj,
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 12:31:41PM -0600, Debian Project secretary wrote:
> Proposer: Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Seconds:1. Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 2. Kyle McMartin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 3. Clint Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 2004-02-26 06:36:57 + Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>> Yes, I did get that from the web page. Coomon sense seems to
>> indicate that we can either cease active support of the non-free
>> section (editing the SC as needed), or we ca
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 11:44:25 +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> It delays the vote in order to add a second "status quo" option to
> the ballot.
In what way exactly is the default option not the status quo?
manoj
--
Sometimes even to live is an act of courage. Seneca
Man
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 11:44:25 +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Modifying the amendment to delete part or all of the original
> proposal does not seem to be one of the Secretary's powers, or do
> you consider wording just a matter of procedure? If the amendment
> wishes to delete things, *
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 11:44:25 +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Modifying the amendment to delete part or all of the original
> proposal does not seem to be one of the Secretary's powers, or do
> you consider wording just a matter of procedure? If the amendment
> wishes to delete things, *
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 11:44:25 +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> It delays the vote in order to add a second "status quo" option to
> the ballot.
In what way exactly is the default option not the status quo?
manoj
--
Sometimes even to live is an act of courage. Seneca
Man
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 2004-02-26 06:36:57 + Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>> Yes, I did get that from the web page. Coomon sense seems to
>> indicate that we can either cease active support of the non-free
>> section (editing the SC as needed), or we ca
On 2004-02-26 06:36:57 + Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Yes, I did get that from the web page. Coomon sense seems to
indicate that we can either cease active support of the non-free
section (editing the SC as needed), or we can reaffirm our commitment
to non-free and co
On 2004-02-26 06:36:57 + Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Yes, I did get that from the web page. Coomon sense seems to
indicate that we can either cease active support of the non-free
section (editing the SC as needed), or we can reaffirm our commitment
to non-free and cont
On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 12:46:39PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-02-25 11:42:51 + Anthony Towns
> wrote:
> >Eh? My proposed resolution replaces the entirety of Andrew's proposed
> >resolution. What the hell are you talking about?
> As written, your proposed amendment does no such thing.
Uh
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 22:29:12 +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On 2004-02-25 21:02:20 + Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> The way I see it, these are mutually exclusive proposals.
> Are you basing that on anything you put on
> http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_002
On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 12:46:39PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-02-25 11:42:51 + Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >Eh? My proposed resolution replaces the entirety of Andrew's proposed
> >resolution. What the hell are you talking about?
> As written, your proposed amendment does
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 22:29:12 +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On 2004-02-25 21:02:20 + Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> The way I see it, these are mutually exclusive proposals.
> Are you basing that on anything you put on
> http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_002
On 2004-02-25 21:02:20 + Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
The way I see it, these are mutually exclusive proposals.
Are you basing that on anything you put on
http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_002 as "The actual text of the
amendment"?
[...]
It did seem
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 10:58:17 +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On 2004-02-24 18:31:41 + Debian Project secretary
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The Rationale for the amendment is also available. This amedment
>> only requires a simple majority to pass.
> Does this mean that it only
On 2004-02-25 21:02:20 + Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
The way I see it, these are mutually exclusive proposals.
Are you basing that on anything you put on
http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_002 as "The actual text of the
amendment"?
[...]
It did seem clear to me t
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 10:58:17 +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On 2004-02-24 18:31:41 + Debian Project secretary
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The Rationale for the amendment is also available. This amedment
>> only requires a simple majority to pass.
> Does this mean that it only
* MJ Ray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040225 13:55]:
> On 2004-02-25 11:42:51 + Anthony Towns
> wrote:
>
> >Eh? My proposed resolution replaces the entirety of Andrew's proposed
> >resolution. What the hell are you talking about?
> As written, your proposed amendment does no such thing. You knew th
* MJ Ray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040225 13:55]:
> On 2004-02-25 11:42:51 + Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >Eh? My proposed resolution replaces the entirety of Andrew's proposed
> >resolution. What the hell are you talking about?
> As written, your proposed amendment does no such
On 2004-02-25 11:42:51 + Anthony Towns
wrote:
Eh? My proposed resolution replaces the entirety of Andrew's proposed
resolution. What the hell are you talking about?
As written, your proposed amendment does no such thing. You knew that
an amendment should say if it deletes, because your
On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 10:58:17AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > The Rationale for the amendment is also available.
> >This
> >amedment only requires a simple majority to pass.
> Does this mean that it only needs a simple majority over the original,
> or that the amended GR would only n
On 2004-02-24 18:31:41 + Debian Project secretary
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The Rationale for the amendment is also available.
This
amedment only requires a simple majority to pass.
Does this mean that it only needs a simple majority over the original,
or that the amende
On 2004-02-25 11:42:51 + Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Eh? My proposed resolution replaces the entirety of Andrew's proposed
resolution. What the hell are you talking about?
As written, your proposed amendment does no such thing. You knew that
an amendment should say if it deletes
On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 10:58:17AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > The Rationale for the amendment is also available.
> >This
> >amedment only requires a simple majority to pass.
> Does this mean that it only needs a simple majority over the original,
> or that the amended GR would only n
On 2004-02-24 18:31:41 + Debian Project secretary
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The Rationale for the amendment is also available.
This
amedment only requires a simple majority to pass.
Does this mean that it only needs a simple majority over the original,
or that the amended G
Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 08:46:42PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 04:35:17PM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote:
Uh, some of us were actually around before the social contract... and
I'm pretty sure nobody ever asked me if *I* agreed to it.
Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 08:46:42PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 04:35:17PM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote:
Uh, some of us were actually around before the social contract... and
I'm pretty sure nobody ever asked me if *I* agreed to it.
Uh,
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 08:46:42PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 04:35:17PM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> > Uh, some of us were actually around before the social contract... and
> > I'm pretty sure nobody ever asked me if *I* agreed to it.
> Uh, what? I thought it was in
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 08:46:42PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 04:35:17PM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> > Uh, some of us were actually around before the social contract... and
> > I'm pretty sure nobody ever asked me if *I* agreed to it.
> Uh, what? I thought it was in
On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 04:35:17PM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> Andrew Suffield wrote:
>
> >I would hope that everybody who has a vote already knows what we want
> >the social contract to say, because they agreed to it when they joined
> >the project. The question of whether or not to keep non
Hi folks,
Well, though somewhat belatedly, I have now modified the
vote.d.o web pages to include the second vote for the year, namely,
the non-free GR. I note that there are two proposals which shall go
on the ballot, and each has the required minimum number of seconds.
The t
On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 04:35:17PM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> Andrew Suffield wrote:
>
> >I would hope that everybody who has a vote already knows what we want
> >the social contract to say, because they agreed to it when they joined
> >the project. The question of whether or not to keep non
Hi folks,
Well, though somewhat belatedly, I have now modified the
vote.d.o web pages to include the second vote for the year, namely,
the non-free GR. I note that there are two proposals which shall go
on the ballot, and each has the required minimum number of seconds.
The t
* Anthony Towns (aj@azure.humbug.org.au) [040223 04:40]:
> On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 07:52:10PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > Editorial amendments to the social contract
>
> > I believe that both of these GRs can begin the SRP immediately. They
> > were designed to be mutually independent so the
Andrew Suffield wrote:
I would hope that everybody who has a vote already knows what we want
the social contract to say, because they agreed to it when they joined
the project. The question of whether or not to keep non-free is
entirely orthogonal and does not affect this GR, by design.
Uh,
* Anthony Towns ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040223 04:40]:
> On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 07:52:10PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > Editorial amendments to the social contract
>
> > I believe that both of these GRs can begin the SRP immediately. They
> > were designed to be mutually independent so they can
Andrew Suffield wrote:
I would hope that everybody who has a vote already knows what we want
the social contract to say, because they agreed to it when they joined
the project. The question of whether or not to keep non-free is
entirely orthogonal and does not affect this GR, by design.
Uh, s
On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 01:02:18PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 07:52:10PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > Editorial amendments to the social contract
>
> > I believe that both of these GRs can begin the SRP immediately. They
> > were designed to be mutually independent
On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 01:02:18PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 07:52:10PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > Editorial amendments to the social contract
>
> > I believe that both of these GRs can begin the SRP immediately. They
> > were designed to be mutually independent
On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 07:52:10PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Editorial amendments to the social contract
> I believe that both of these GRs can begin the SRP immediately. They
> were designed to be mutually independent so they can run in parallel.
I know I've been avoiding commenting on the
On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 07:52:10PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Editorial amendments to the social contract
> I believe that both of these GRs can begin the SRP immediately. They
> were designed to be mutually independent so they can run in parallel.
I know I've been avoiding commenting on the
I now have two active GR proposals that have received sufficient
seconds:
Removal of non-free
This proposal was first introduced in its current form in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200312/msg00044.ht
I now have two active GR proposals that have received sufficient
seconds:
Removal of non-free
This proposal was first introduced in its current form in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200312/msg00044.ht
44 matches
Mail list logo
