On Wed, Jul 19, 2000 at 02:43:11AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2000 at 12:23:27AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > Given the continued lack of a reply, I shall assume that
> > there is indeed no need for the GR.
>
> Actually, it appears you have reached your conclusion a prior
On Wed, Jul 19, 2000 at 02:43:11AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2000 at 12:23:27AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > Given the continued lack of a reply, I shall assume that
> > there is indeed no need for the GR.
>
> Actually, it appears you have reached your conclusion a prio
On Tue, Jun 27, 2000 at 12:23:27AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> Given the continued lack of a reply, I shall assume that
> there is indeed no need for the GR.
Actually, it appears you have reached your conclusion a priori the premise
you cited, so let's not play games.
--
G. Branden Robinson
On Tue, Jun 27, 2000 at 12:23:27AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> Given the continued lack of a reply, I shall assume that
> there is indeed no need for the GR.
Actually, it appears you have reached your conclusion a priori the premise
you cited, so let's not play games.
--
G. Branden Robinson
On Thu, Jun 22, 2000 at 06:10:01PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 01:36:51PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 10:39:11PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > sources.list. Nobody has yet shown me why merely being on
> > > debian.org means that it has to
On Thu, Jun 22, 2000 at 06:10:01PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 01:36:51PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 10:39:11PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > sources.list. Nobody has yet shown me why merely being on
> > > debian.org means that it has to
On Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 01:36:51PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 10:39:11PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > sources.list. Nobody has yet shown me why merely being on
> > debian.org means that it has to be associated with the Debian
> > distribution.
>
> Given this very poi
On Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 01:36:51PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 10:39:11PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > sources.list. Nobody has yet shown me why merely being on
> > debian.org means that it has to be associated with the Debian
> > distribution.
>
> Given this very po
On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 10:32:57PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> My proposal does not throw out the social contract. It strengthens
> it.
no, it does not strengthen it. it throws out the bits of it that you
personally don't like.
> I fail to see how you can call supporting and spreading non-free
On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 10:32:57PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> My proposal does not throw out the social contract. It strengthens
> it.
no, it does not strengthen it. it throws out the bits of it that you
personally don't like.
> I fail to see how you can call supporting and spreading non-free
On Sat, 17 Jun 2000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 09:36:46AM +, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > On Sat, 17 Jun 2000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > > "We will be guided by the needs of our users." Our users
> > > have indicated that non-free is currently required.
> > > And that means u
On Sat, 17 Jun 2000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 09:36:46AM +, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > On Sat, 17 Jun 2000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > > "We will be guided by the needs of our users." Our users
> > > have indicated that non-free is currently required.
> > > And that means
On 15-Jun-00, 22:39 (CDT), John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > Will you please stop equating "I want to provide the best experience
> > for our users" with "I support non-free software at the same level
> > of enthusiasm I support free sof
On 15-Jun-00, 22:39 (CDT), John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > Will you please stop equating "I want to provide the best experience
> > for our users" with "I support non-free software at the same level
> > of enthusiasm I support free so
On Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 09:36:46AM +, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jun 2000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > "We will be guided by the needs of our users." Our users
> > have indicated that non-free is currently required.
> > And that means us developing it, not us passing it off.
> > Which part
On Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 09:36:46AM +, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jun 2000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > "We will be guided by the needs of our users." Our users
> > have indicated that non-free is currently required.
> > And that means us developing it, not us passing it off.
> > Which par
On Sat, 17 Jun 2000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 10:33:17PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > 4. Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software
> > >We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free-software
> > >
On Sat, 17 Jun 2000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 10:33:17PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > 4. Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software
> > >We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free-software
> >
On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 10:33:17PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > 4. Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software
> >We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free-software
> >community. We will place their interests first
On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 09:23:23PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> If not, then I ask how much sense it makes for Debian Developers 20
> years from now to be bound by a document which says we make available
> an FTP archive of non-free software. What do we do when FTP goes the
> way of UUCP?
in
On 16 Jun 2000, John Goerzen wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
>
> > On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 10:33:17PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > My proposal does not throw out the social contract. It strengthens
> > > it. I fail to see how you can call supporting and spreading non-free
> > > software "go
On Fri, Jun 16, 2000 at 03:43:06PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > And, lastly, Debian providing all this makes non-free software easier to
> > maintain and easier to obtain, and, IMO, making life easier is a moral
> > good too.
> apt can pull from anywhere.
And dinstall? The BTS? The mirror networ
On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 10:33:17PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > 4. Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software
> >We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free-software
> >community. We will place their interests firs
On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 09:23:23PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> If not, then I ask how much sense it makes for Debian Developers 20
> years from now to be bound by a document which says we make available
> an FTP archive of non-free software. What do we do when FTP goes the
> way of UUCP?
i
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 01:34:20PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 06:31:50PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > > Obviously you have no problem with throwing out the social contract on a
> > > whim.
> >
> > Please explain to where the proposed GR mandates this.
> >
> >
On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 01:34:20PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 06:31:50PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > Obviously you have no problem with throwing out the social contract on a
> > whim.
>
> Please explain to where the proposed GR mandates this.
>
> I see an amende
On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 10:39:11PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> sources.list. Nobody has yet shown me why merely being on
> debian.org means that it has to be associated with the Debian
> distribution.
Given this very point, why the GR?
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAI
On 16 Jun 2000, John Goerzen wrote:
> Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 10:33:17PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > My proposal does not throw out the social contract. It strengthens
> > > it. I fail to see how you can call supporting and spreading non-fre
On Fri, Jun 16, 2000 at 03:43:06PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > And, lastly, Debian providing all this makes non-free software easier to
> > maintain and easier to obtain, and, IMO, making life easier is a moral
> > good too.
> apt can pull from anywhere.
And dinstall? The BTS? The mirror netwo
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 01:34:20PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 06:31:50PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > > Obviously you have no problem with throwing out the social contract on a
> > > whim.
> >
> > Please explain to where the proposed GR mandates this.
> >
>
On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 01:34:20PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 06:31:50PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > Obviously you have no problem with throwing out the social contract on a
> > whim.
>
> Please explain to where the proposed GR mandates this.
>
> I see an amend
On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 10:39:11PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> sources.list. Nobody has yet shown me why merely being on
> debian.org means that it has to be associated with the Debian
> distribution.
Given this very point, why the GR?
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMA
Anthony Towns writes:
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 10:33:17PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > My proposal does not throw out the social contract. It strengthens
> > it. I fail to see how you can call supporting and spreading non-free
> > software "good, valuable principles." There is no logical or
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 10:33:17PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > My proposal does not throw out the social contract. It strengthens
> > it. I fail to see how you can call supporting and spreading non-free
> > software "good, valuable principles." Th
** On Jun 16, John Goerzen scribbled:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marek Habersack) writes:
>
> > ** On Jun 13, John Goerzen scribbled:
> >
> > [snip]
> > > > facts I outlined are true, then the GR doesn't make sense at all! ANd
> > > > that's
> > >
> > > Why? Why does it not make sense to remove the
: "John Goerzen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Steve Greenland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: ;
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2000 10:39 PM
Subject: Re: An ammendment (Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish
Non-Free)
> Why? Nobody has yet shown me what is so hard about ed
** On Jun 16, John Goerzen scribbled:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marek Habersack) writes:
>
> > ** On Jun 13, John Goerzen scribbled:
> >
> > [snip]
> > > > facts I outlined are true, then the GR doesn't make sense at all! ANd that's
> > >
> > > Why? Why does it not make sense to remove the non-free
: "John Goerzen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Steve Greenland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2000 10:39 PM
Subject: Re: An ammendment (Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish
Non-Free)
&g
Darren O. Benham wrote:
>>
>> Except that Chris Lawrence is mistaken as to how Condorcet's method is
>> implemented within the Debian Project. Yesterday he wrote:
>>
>Chris is not mistaken.
That's strange... in my post I gave an example from one of Debian's previous
elections proving (I think) t
Darren O. Benham wrote:
>>
>> Except that Chris Lawrence is mistaken as to how Condorcet's method is
>> implemented within the Debian Project. Yesterday he wrote:
>>
>Chris is not mistaken.
That's strange... in my post I gave an example from one of Debian's previous
elections proving (I think)
On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 10:33:17PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> My proposal does not throw out the social contract. It strengthens
> it. I fail to see how you can call supporting and spreading non-free
> software "good, valuable principles." There is no logical or ethical
> basis for such a stat
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marek Habersack) writes:
> ** On Jun 13, John Goerzen scribbled:
>
> [snip]
> > > facts I outlined are true, then the GR doesn't make sense at all! ANd
> > > that's
> >
> > Why? Why does it not make sense to remove the non-free software from
> > the Debian Project?
> Because
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 13-Jun-00, 01:30 (CDT), John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 03:30:04PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > > What do we need this in a GR for?
> > >
> > > To reaffi
On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 10:14:54PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> My post was made solely to point out the illogic of Hamish Moffatt's
> equivalence between "throwing out the Social Contract on a whim", which was
> what he accused John Goerzen of attempting to do, and the text of John's
> General
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > To reaffirm the principles you are working to erode.
> >
> > Your principles are the support and spreading of non-free software?
>
> Not at all. I refer to the principles stated in the Debian
> Social Contract:
>
> 5. Programs That Don't Meet
On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 09:38:25PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 04:26:18PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > Please explain what part of the constitution allows for a GR to
> > > amend the social contract.
>
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 09:23:43PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 10:33:17PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> My proposal does not throw out the social contract. It strengthens
> it. I fail to see how you can call supporting and spreading non-free
> software "good, valuable principles." There is no logical or ethical
> basis for such a sta
On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 04:26:18PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Please explain what part of the constitution allows for a GR to
> > amend the social contract.
On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 09:23:43PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> How is this a rebuttal? It's not even on point. If the constitution
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marek Habersack) writes:
> ** On Jun 13, John Goerzen scribbled:
>
> [snip]
> > > facts I outlined are true, then the GR doesn't make sense at all! ANd that's
> >
> > Why? Why does it not make sense to remove the non-free software from
> > the Debian Project?
> Because many
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 13-Jun-00, 01:30 (CDT), John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 03:30:04PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > > What do we need this in a GR for?
> > >
> > > To reaff
On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 10:14:54PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> My post was made solely to point out the illogic of Hamish Moffatt's
> equivalence between "throwing out the Social Contract on a whim", which was
> what he accused John Goerzen of attempting to do, and the text of John's
> Genera
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > To reaffirm the principles you are working to erode.
> >
> > Your principles are the support and spreading of non-free software?
>
> Not at all. I refer to the principles stated in the Debian
> Social Contract:
>
> 5. Programs That Don't Mee
On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 04:26:18PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 06:31:50PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > > Obviously you have no problem with throwing out the social contract on a
> > > whim.
>
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 01:34:20PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Plea
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 11:41:27 -0500, Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> said:
Chris> On Jun 13, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>> AFAIK the helix people are free to upload their debs if they want
>> to maintain them according to our policies..
Chris> FWIW they seem to have done a good job
On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 09:38:25PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 04:26:18PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > Please explain what part of the constitution allows for a GR to
> > > amend the social contract.
>
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 09:23:43PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 04:26:18PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Please explain what part of the constitution allows for a GR to
> > amend the social contract.
On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 09:23:43PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> How is this a rebuttal? It's not even on point. If the constitution
>
On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 04:26:18PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 06:31:50PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > > Obviously you have no problem with throwing out the social contract on a
> > > whim.
>
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 01:34:20PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Ple
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 11:41:27 -0500, Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Chris> On Jun 13, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>> AFAIK the helix people are free to upload their debs if they want
>> to maintain them according to our policies..
Chris> FWIW they seem to have done a good job of pa
On Sun, Jun 11, 2000 at 04:05:30PM -0600, Norman Petry wrote:
> On Sat, June 10, 2000 10:00 PM, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> >
> >On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 09:53:40PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> >> Now follows a dissertation on the voting system:
> >[...]
> >
> >Thanks for the primer; this was qui
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 06:31:50PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > Obviously you have no problem with throwing out the social contract on a
> > whim.
On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 01:34:20PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Please explain to where the proposed GR mandates this.
Please explain what p
On Sun, Jun 11, 2000 at 04:05:30PM -0600, Norman Petry wrote:
> On Sat, June 10, 2000 10:00 PM, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> >
> >On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 09:53:40PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> >> Now follows a dissertation on the voting system:
> >[...]
> >
> >Thanks for the primer; this was qu
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 06:31:50PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > Obviously you have no problem with throwing out the social contract on a
> > whim.
On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 01:34:20PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Please explain to where the proposed GR mandates this.
Please explain what
On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 06:31:50PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> Obviously you have no problem with throwing out the social contract on a
> whim.
Please explain to where the proposed GR mandates this.
I see an amendement of its language, but no blanket repeal of the document.
--
G. Branden Rob
On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 06:31:50PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> Obviously you have no problem with throwing out the social contract on a
> whim.
Please explain to where the proposed GR mandates this.
I see an amendement of its language, but no blanket repeal of the document.
--
G. Branden Ro
Le Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 11:41:27AM -0500, Chris Lawrence écrivait:
> FWIW they seem to have done a good job of packaging and maintaining
> the Gnome stuff. It'd be nice to see someone from Helix officially
> maintaining our Gnome packages (or have them liaise with the current
> Debian maintainer(s
Le Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 11:41:27AM -0500, Chris Lawrence écrivait:
> FWIW they seem to have done a good job of packaging and maintaining
> the Gnome stuff. It'd be nice to see someone from Helix officially
> maintaining our Gnome packages (or have them liaise with the current
> Debian maintainer(
On 13-Jun-00, 01:30 (CDT), John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 03:30:04PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > What do we need this in a GR for?
> >
> > To reaffirm the principles you are working to erode.
>
> Your princ
On 13-Jun-00, 01:30 (CDT), John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 03:30:04PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > What do we need this in a GR for?
> >
> > To reaffirm the principles you are working to erode.
>
> Your prin
> FWIW they seem to have done a good job of packaging and maintaining
> the Gnome stuff. It'd be nice to see someone from Helix officially
> maintaining our Gnome packages (or have them liaise with the current
> Debian maintainer(s) of those packages).
>
> I agree that I'm not really sure what v
On Jun 13, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> AFAIK the helix people are free to upload their debs if they want to
> maintain them according to our policies..
FWIW they seem to have done a good job of packaging and maintaining
the Gnome stuff. It'd be nice to see someone from Helix officially
maintaining o
> FWIW they seem to have done a good job of packaging and maintaining
> the Gnome stuff. It'd be nice to see someone from Helix officially
> maintaining our Gnome packages (or have them liaise with the current
> Debian maintainer(s) of those packages).
>
> I agree that I'm not really sure what
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000, Paul J Thompson wrote:
> archives. For instance, I mean, the Helix Gnome collection of debs is
> far better then our group and I think it would be nice to show our
> support to them. So, what about providing a place within the debian
> distribution unofficial area to include
On Jun 13, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> AFAIK the helix people are free to upload their debs if they want to
> maintain them according to our policies..
FWIW they seem to have done a good job of packaging and maintaining
the Gnome stuff. It'd be nice to see someone from Helix officially
maintaining
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000, Paul J Thompson wrote:
> archives. For instance, I mean, the Helix Gnome collection of debs is
> far better then our group and I think it would be nice to show our
> support to them. So, what about providing a place within the debian
> distribution unofficial area to include
> > On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 11:03:33PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > 4) noting that the Debian project already distributes various other
> > collections of unofficial packages, the project endorses a move to
> > specifically collect the various other add-on components such as
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 11:03:33PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > 4) noting that the Debian project already distributes various other
> > collections of unofficial packages, the project endorses a move to
> > specifically collect the various other add-on components such as
> >
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 12:53:44PM -0600, Bruce Sass wrote:
> > If you really want to show that non-free and contrib are not part of the
> > distribution you should move them out from under "dists".
> > ftp...debian.org/
> > debian/ #
** On Jun 13, John Goerzen scribbled:
[snip]
> > facts I outlined are true, then the GR doesn't make sense at all! ANd that's
>
> Why? Why does it not make sense to remove the non-free software from
> the Debian Project?
Because many developers and users think and have written so that it would b
On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 01:30:30AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 03:30:04PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > What do we need this in a GR for?
> >
> > To reaffirm the principles you are working to erode.
>
> Your principles
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 12:53:44PM -0600, Bruce Sass wrote:
> > If you really want to show that non-free and contrib are not part of the
> > distribution you should move them out from under "dists".
> > ftp...debian.org/
> > debian/ #
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marek Habersack) writes:
> > Do you wish Debian to be known for providing non-free software? The
> > social contract says that Debian is 100% free software, yet you quite
> > clearly point out above Debian has an obvious double standard. We say
> > Debian is 100% free softwar
** On Jun 13, John Goerzen scribbled:
[snip]
> > facts I outlined are true, then the GR doesn't make sense at all! ANd that's
>
> Why? Why does it not make sense to remove the non-free software from
> the Debian Project?
Because many developers and users think and have written so that it would
On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 01:30:30AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 03:30:04PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > What do we need this in a GR for?
> >
> > To reaffirm the principles you are working to erode.
>
> Your principles
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 03:30:04PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > What do we need this in a GR for?
>
> To reaffirm the principles you are working to erode.
Your principles are the support and spreading of non-free software?
Just what is wrong with er
On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 12:53:44PM -0600, Bruce Sass wrote:
> If you really want to show that non-free and contrib are not part of the
> distribution you should move them out from under "dists".
> ftp...debian.org/
> debian/ # has infrastructure support
> dists/.
On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 09:10:47PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 05:22:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > The intention of this ammendment is to provide a means for developers to
> > offer their support of the existing social contract while acknowledging
> > that the cu
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marek Habersack) writes:
> > Do you wish Debian to be known for providing non-free software? The
> > social contract says that Debian is 100% free software, yet you quite
> > clearly point out above Debian has an obvious double standard. We say
> > Debian is 100% free softwa
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 03:30:04PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > What do we need this in a GR for?
>
> To reaffirm the principles you are working to erode.
Your principles are the support and spreading of non-free software?
Just what is wrong with e
On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 12:53:44PM -0600, Bruce Sass wrote:
> If you really want to show that non-free and contrib are not part of the
> distribution you should move them out from under "dists".
> ftp...debian.org/
> debian/ # has infrastructure support
> dists/
On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 09:10:47PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 05:22:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > The intention of this ammendment is to provide a means for developers to
> > offer their support of the existing social contract while acknowledging
> > that the c
On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 05:22:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> The intention of this ammendment is to provide a means for developers to
> offer their support of the existing social contract while acknowledging
> that the current situation does indeed give somewhat too much credibility.
I'm afrai
On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 05:22:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> The intention of this ammendment is to provide a means for developers to
> offer their support of the existing social contract while acknowledging
> that the current situation does indeed give somewhat too much credibility.
I'm afra
I second this amendment.
Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 11:03:33PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > DEBIAN GENERAL RESOLUTION
> > Proposed by: John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I wish to propose an ammendment to the proposed resolution as follows.
>
> The text of the resolution
On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, C. Cooke wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Jun 2000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > to dists/woody/
> > main
> > add-on/
<...>
>
> dists/woody/
> debian
> non-debian/
If you really want to show that non-free and contrib are not part of the
distribution you sh
I second this amendment.
Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 11:03:33PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > DEBIAN GENERAL RESOLUTION
> > Proposed by: John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I wish to propose an ammendment to the proposed resolution as follows.
>
> The text of the resolution
On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, C. Cooke wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Jun 2000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > to dists/woody/
> > main
> > add-on/
<...>
>
> dists/woody/
> debian
> non-debian/
If you really want to show that non-free and contrib are not part of the
distribution you s
On Sun, 11 Jun 2000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>
> dists/ woody/
> main
> contrib
> non-free
>
> todists/woody/
> main
> add-on/
> contrib
> non-free
> ex
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On 7 Jun 2000, John Goerzen wrote:
> Debian General Resolution
>
> Resolved:
>
> A. That the Debian Social Contract with the Free Software Community be
> amended as follows:
>
> 1. That text of Section 5 be modified to read: "We acknowledge that
> some of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On 7 Jun 2000, John Goerzen wrote:
> Debian General Resolution
>
> Resolved:
>
> A. That the Debian Social Contract with the Free Software Community be
> amended as follows:
>
> 1. That text of Section 5 be modified to read: "We acknowledge that
> some o
On Sat, June 10, 2000 10:00 PM, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
>On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 09:53:40PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
>> Now follows a dissertation on the voting system:
>[...]
>
>Thanks for the primer; this was quite possibly the most useful message in
>this entire thread.
>
Except that Chr
1 - 100 of 172 matches
Mail list logo
