On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 03:27:14PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Sure there is; people might legitimately want to vote:
> [ ] Change social contract, remove non-free
> [ ] Change social contract, don't remove non-free
> [ ] Don't change social contract, don't remove non-free
On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 03:27:14PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Sure there is; people might legitimately want to vote:
> [ ] Change social contract, remove non-free
> [ ] Change social contract, don't remove non-free
> [ ] Don't change social contract, don't remove non-free
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 07:37:07PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 05:51:21PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > (And no, I don't much like saying "Debian will be 100% free", then
> > deliberately contradicting yourself with an "except for...". But it's
> > better to be up fro
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 08:44:07PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > (BTW, in this proposed ballot, would the default option per the SRP be
> > "Further Discussion" or "Don't change social contract"?)
The default option for general resolutions is "Further Discussion",
the default option for DPL e
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 07:37:07PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 05:51:21PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > (And no, I don't much like saying "Debian will be 100% free", then
> > deliberately contradicting yourself with an "except for...". But it's
> > better to be up fro
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 08:44:07PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > (BTW, in this proposed ballot, would the default option per the SRP be
> > "Further Discussion" or "Don't change social contract"?)
The default option for general resolutions is "Further Discussion",
the default option for DPL e
On Nov 12, 2003, at 01:24, Buddha Buck wrote:
252 ballots ranking 1234
253 ballots ranking 2314
251 ballots ranking 3124
250 ballots ranking 2221
It would strongly appear I misread the ballot results in my last post.
Oops.
On Nov 11, 2003, at 19:47, Branden Robinson wrote:
Of course it does. Consider:
[ ] Choice 1: Remove Clause 5 of the Social Contract(, Keep Debian
Swirl Red)
[ ] Choice 2: Remove Clause 5 of the Social Contract, Make Debian
Swirl Green
[ ] Choice 3: Remove Clause 5 of the Social Contr
On Nov 12, 2003, at 01:24, Buddha Buck wrote:
252 ballots ranking 1234
253 ballots ranking 2314
251 ballots ranking 3124
250 ballots ranking 2221
It would strongly appear I misread the ballot results in my last post.
Oops.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscr
On Nov 11, 2003, at 19:47, Branden Robinson wrote:
Of course it does. Consider:
[ ] Choice 1: Remove Clause 5 of the Social Contract(, Keep Debian
Swirl Red)
[ ] Choice 2: Remove Clause 5 of the Social Contract, Make Debian
Swirl Green
[ ] Choice 3: Remove Clause 5 of the Social Contract
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 08:26:38PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > AIUI, making this explicit and adding competing alternatives can only
> > prejudice the original proposal if the success of that proposal
> > depended on an ambiguous meaning.
> That doesn't follow at all, as far as I can tell.
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 08:26:38PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > AIUI, making this explicit and adding competing alternatives can only
> > prejudice the original proposal if the success of that proposal
> > depended on an ambiguous meaning.
> That doesn't follow at all, as far as I can tell.
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 01:30:24 -0500, Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 19:47:23 -0500, Branden Robinson
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>> What happens? Our voting system does not give us the ability to
>>> reach the common-sense conclusion that
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 01:30:24 -0500, Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 19:47:23 -0500, Branden Robinson
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>> What happens? Our voting system does not give us the ability to
>>> reach the common-sense conclusion that
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 19:47:23 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 08:28:54PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 06:56:15PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Anthony's example splits a potential "change social contrac
Branden Robinson wrote:
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 08:28:54PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 06:56:15PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Anthony's example splits a potential "change social contract"
supermajority into two, and yours splits it into three.
This pretty much ensur
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 19:47:23 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 08:28:54PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 06:56:15PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>> > Anthony's example splits a potential "change social contract"
>> > supermajority
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 19:47:23 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 08:28:54PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 06:56:15PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Anthony's example splits a potential "change social contract"
su
Branden Robinson wrote:
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 08:28:54PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 06:56:15PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Anthony's example splits a potential "change social contract"
supermajority into two, and yours splits it into three.
This pretty much ensures t
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 19:47:23 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 08:28:54PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 06:56:15PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>> > Anthony's example splits a potential "change social contract"
>> > supermajority
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 07:47:23PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I'm not sure what you mean by this. Is this an effort to wave aside
> basically everything I've said, or are you being more subtle?
One doesn't wave aside what you've said. One only waves aside what you can't
finish saying.
Out
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 10:28:57PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> The problem, as I see it, is that Branden's current proposal reads to
> some people like a "drop distribution of non-free, need 3:1 supermajority
> vote to reinstate that distribution" proposal to some people,
I've said over and over a
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 02:47:40AM +, Dylan Thurston wrote:
> The Standard Resolution Procedure specifies that options requiring a
> supermajority need to defeat the default option by 3:1.
Yes, each one individually. Not the options' common parts
interpretively taken together.
> Otherwise al
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 07:47:23PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I'm not sure what you mean by this. Is this an effort to wave aside
> basically everything I've said, or are you being more subtle?
One doesn't wave aside what you've said. One only waves aside what you can't
finish saying.
Out
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 08:18:57PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 03:27:14PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > Sure there is; people might legitimately want to vote:
> > >
> > > [ ] Change social contract, remove non-free
> > > [ ] Change social contract, don't re
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 04:55:32PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> (a) Because "support" isn't really what we're talking about here --
> we're worried not about whether bugs in glibc that only appear when using
> non-free software will get fixed (they will), but rather whether we'll
> allow our infra
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 10:56:10PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Alternatively, maybe people could second the
> draft at the bottom of Anthony Towns' message:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200311/msg00148.html
Anthony didn't propose it as an amendment, but I guess he c
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 08:39:49PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 07:11:41PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > It seems to me, then, that we are already in practice treating non-free
> > as less important than the main distribution. Moreover, we have been
> > doing so for qui
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 10:28:57PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> The problem, as I see it, is that Branden's current proposal reads to
> some people like a "drop distribution of non-free, need 3:1 supermajority
> vote to reinstate that distribution" proposal to some people,
I've said over and over a
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 02:47:40AM +, Dylan Thurston wrote:
> The Standard Resolution Procedure specifies that options requiring a
> supermajority need to defeat the default option by 3:1.
Yes, each one individually. Not the options' common parts
interpretively taken together.
> Otherwise al
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 08:28:54PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 06:56:15PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Anthony's example splits a potential "change social contract"
> > supermajority into two, and yours splits it into three.
> >
> > This pretty much ensures the defeat
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 08:18:57PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 03:27:14PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > Sure there is; people might legitimately want to vote:
> > >
> > > [ ] Change social contract, remove non-free
> > > [ ] Change social contract, don't re
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 04:55:32PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> (a) Because "support" isn't really what we're talking about here --
> we're worried not about whether bugs in glibc that only appear when using
> non-free software will get fixed (they will), but rather whether we'll
> allow our infra
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 10:56:10PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Alternatively, maybe people could second the
> draft at the bottom of Anthony Towns' message:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200311/msg00148.html
Anthony didn't propose it as an amendment, but I guess he c
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 08:39:49PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 07:11:41PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > It seems to me, then, that we are already in practice treating non-free
> > as less important than the main distribution. Moreover, we have been
> > doing so for qui
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 08:28:54PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 06:56:15PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Anthony's example splits a potential "change social contract"
> > supermajority into two, and yours splits it into three.
> >
> > This pretty much ensures the defeat
On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 18:56:15 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 02:48:32PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 01:54:39PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> [...]
>> > > [ 1 ] Change social contract, remove non-free [ 1 ] Change
>> > > so
On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 18:56:15 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 02:48:32PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 01:54:39PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> [...]
>> > > [ 1 ] Change social contract, remove non-free [ 1 ] Change
>> > > so
On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 19:37:07 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> It seems that relatively few people get Debian via CD these days,
> and installation directly from the mirror network is far more
> common, where contrib and non-free enjoy apparent parity with main.
A point
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 09:50:14 +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On 2003-11-09 03:56:10 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Alternatively, maybe people could second the draft at the bottom of
>> Anthony Towns' message:
> Why second something that was not proposed? It seems to be a
> hypothet
On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 19:37:07 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> It seems that relatively few people get Debian via CD these days,
> and installation directly from the mirror network is far more
> common, where contrib and non-free enjoy apparent parity with main.
A point
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 09:50:14 +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On 2003-11-09 03:56:10 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Alternatively, maybe people could second the draft at the bottom of
>> Anthony Towns' message:
> Why second something that was not proposed? It seems to be a
> hypothet
On 2003-11-09 03:56:10 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alternatively, maybe people could second the
draft at the bottom of Anthony Towns' message:
Why second something that was not proposed? It seems to be a
hypothetical "if I were..." to give Branden something to think about.
(For off-line
On 2003-11-09 03:56:10 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alternatively, maybe people could second the
draft at the bottom of Anthony Towns' message:
Why second something that was not proposed? It seems to be a
hypothetical "if I were..." to give Branden something to think about.
(For off-line reade
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 05:28:31AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 05:51:21PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > If I were to propose a rewrite the social contract, it'd probably look
> > something like:
> I wonder why nobody talks about "we will support people running LSB
> bina
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 05:28:31AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 05:51:21PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > If I were to propose a rewrite the social contract, it'd probably look
> > something like:
> I wonder why nobody talks about "we will support people running LSB
> bina
> On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 05:51:21PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > If I were to propose a rewrite the social contract, it'd probably look
> > something like:
> [...]
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 05:28:31AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> I wonder why nobody talks about "we will support people running L
> On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 05:51:21PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > If I were to propose a rewrite the social contract, it'd probably look
> > something like:
> [...]
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 05:28:31AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> I wonder why nobody talks about "we will support people running L
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 05:51:21PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> If I were to propose a rewrite the social contract, it'd probably look
> something like:
[...]
I wonder why nobody talks about "we will support people running LSB
binaries". If I would not despise(sp?) non-free software, that would b
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 08:39:49PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> I urge you to consider language which allows the ftp archive maintainers
> distribute non-free software from debian mirrors should they deem this a
> good idea. Specifically, one which aligns with the ideals expressed in:
> http://list
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 02:47:40AM +, Dylan Thurston wrote:
> The Standard Resolution Procedure specifies that options requiring a
> supermajority need to defeat the default option by 3:1. Otherwise all
> options are treated equally. Thus "splitting the vote" would only
> make a difference to
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 05:51:21PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> If I were to propose a rewrite the social contract, it'd probably look
> something like:
[...]
I wonder why nobody talks about "we will support people running LSB
binaries". If I would not despise(sp?) non-free software, that would b
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 08:39:49PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> I urge you to consider language which allows the ftp archive maintainers
> distribute non-free software from debian mirrors should they deem this a
> good idea. Specifically, one which aligns with the ideals expressed in:
> http://list
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 02:47:40AM +, Dylan Thurston wrote:
> The Standard Resolution Procedure specifies that options requiring a
> supermajority need to defeat the default option by 3:1. Otherwise all
> options are treated equally. Thus "splitting the vote" would only
> make a difference to
On 2003-11-09, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 03:27:14PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> Sure there is; people might legitimately want to vote:
>>
>> [ ] Change social contract, remove non-free
>> [ ] Change social contract, don't remove non-free
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 07:51:42PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 03:27:14PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Sure there is; people might legitimately want to vote:
> >
> > [ ] Change social contract, remove non-free
> > [ ] Change social contract, don't remove
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 07:11:41PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> It seems to me, then, that we are already in practice treating non-free
> as less important than the main distribution. Moreover, we have been
> doing so for quite some time.
>
> In this sense, the removal of clause 5 from the So
On 2003-11-09, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 03:27:14PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> Sure there is; people might legitimately want to vote:
>>
>> [ ] Change social contract, remove non-free
>> [ ] Change social contract, don't remove non-free
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 06:56:15PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Anthony's example splits a potential "change social contract"
> supermajority into two, and yours splits it into three.
>
> This pretty much ensures the defeat of any option that requires a 3:1
> majority, and makes it extremely d
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 07:51:42PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 03:27:14PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Sure there is; people might legitimately want to vote:
> >
> > [ ] Change social contract, remove non-free
> > [ ] Change social contract, don't remove
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 07:11:41PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> It seems to me, then, that we are already in practice treating non-free
> as less important than the main distribution. Moreover, we have been
> doing so for quite some time.
>
> In this sense, the removal of clause 5 from the So
On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 03:27:14PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Sure there is; people might legitimately want to vote:
>
> [ ] Change social contract, remove non-free
> [ ] Change social contract, don't remove non-free
> [ ] Don't change social contract, don't remove non-f
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 06:56:15PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Anthony's example splits a potential "change social contract"
> supermajority into two, and yours splits it into three.
>
> This pretty much ensures the defeat of any option that requires a 3:1
> majority, and makes it extremely d
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 05:51:21PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > The same way we always have; by claiming that non-free isn't "part of
> > our distribution".
>
> Except we're not saying "our distribution" anymore, we're using the plural.
> We're also saying "100%", and "every work". There's noth
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 10:34:23PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Again, stuff in the social contract is more important than stuff not
> in it.
Elsewhere[1] you said:
> At the moment, we basically just let the maintainers of non-free
> packages do all the work -- make sure the license is okay, get
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 02:48:32PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 01:54:39PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
[...]
> > > [ 1 ] Change social contract, remove non-free
> > > [ 1 ] Change social contract, keep non-free
[...]
> Depends who they want to punt to. If they're hap
On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 03:27:14PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Sure there is; people might legitimately want to vote:
>
> [ ] Change social contract, remove non-free
> [ ] Change social contract, don't remove non-free
> [ ] Don't change social contract, don't remove non-f
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 05:51:21PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > The same way we always have; by claiming that non-free isn't "part of
> > our distribution".
>
> Except we're not saying "our distribution" anymore, we're using the plural.
> We're also saying "100%", and "every work". There's noth
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 10:34:23PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Again, stuff in the social contract is more important than stuff not
> in it.
Elsewhere[1] you said:
> At the moment, we basically just let the maintainers of non-free
> packages do all the work -- make sure the license is okay, get
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 02:48:32PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 01:54:39PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
[...]
> > > [ 1 ] Change social contract, remove non-free
> > > [ 1 ] Change social contract, keep non-free
[...]
> Depends who they want to punt to. If they're hap
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 06:22:40PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 05:23:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Second, our users still aren't able to do everything they might like
> > to with free software; they can't play Flash games, they can't look
> > at Quicktime movies,
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 07:46:27PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> To distinguish between modification of the social contract, and
> removal of non-free; the latter vote should immediately follow the
> former (once we know what the ballot will look like for the first, we
> can write the second). Th
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 07:46:27PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> To distinguish between modification of the social contract, and
> removal of non-free; the latter vote should immediately follow the
> former (once we know what the ballot will look like for the first, we
> can write the second). Th
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 06:22:40PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 05:23:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Second, our users still aren't able to do everything they might like
> > to with free software; they can't play Flash games, they can't look
> > at Quicktime movies,
[digression; nothing about voting or the current GR here, just a
question about the real reasons that non-free is languishing today.]
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 05:23:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Second, our users still aren't able to do everything they might like
> to with free software; they
[digression; nothing about voting or the current GR here, just a
question about the real reasons that non-free is languishing today.]
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 05:23:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Second, our users still aren't able to do everything they might like
> to with free software; they
On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 04:25:28PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> [Please direct followups to debian-vote.]
>
> Now that the vote over the meaning of clause 4.1.5 of the Debian
> Constitution is drawing to a close, the time is ripe to clear the last
> bit of pending business from the discussions
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 04:24:20PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 08:53:40PM -0800, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> > The archive admins still need to answer to the project. If they
> > weren't barred from removing non-free right away (which may or may not
> > be case with the propo
On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 04:25:28PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> [Please direct followups to debian-vote.]
>
> Now that the vote over the meaning of clause 4.1.5 of the Debian
> Constitution is drawing to a close, the time is ripe to clear the last
> bit of pending business from the discussions
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 04:24:20PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 08:53:40PM -0800, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> > The archive admins still need to answer to the project. If they
> > weren't barred from removing non-free right away (which may or may not
> > be case with the propo
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 09:17:18AM +0100, Peter Makholm wrote:
> >> It might be a cultural issue but it is, for me, perfectly
> >> sane to say:
> >> 1. This is what I believe.
> > "That Debian should be 100% free" ?
Is that what you believe or not? It's what the proposed social
contract says. I
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 09:17:18AM +0100, Peter Makholm wrote:
> >> It might be a cultural issue but it is, for me, perfectly
> >> sane to say:
> >> 1. This is what I believe.
> > "That Debian should be 100% free" ?
Is that what you believe or not? It's what the proposed social
contract says. I
Anthony Towns writes:
>> >> It's a distinction
>> >> I'm not surprised that not everybody see but it is important to me.
>> > Mmm. You're very special.
>> No, I'm not.
>
> Mmm. I thought you just said you saw something that other people didn't?
> Surely that makes you special?
I said that it do
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >> It's a distinction
>> >> I'm not surprised that not everybody see but it is important to me.
>> > Mmm. You're very special.
>> No, I'm not.
>
> Mmm. I thought you just said you saw something that other people didn't?
> Surely that makes you special?
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 01:54:39PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> Of course, that leaves voters without any way to express the
> >> opinion "change the Social Contract to not mandate non-free, but
> >> punt on the question of its actual removal", which is also a valid
> >> viewpoint.
> > [
On Nov 4, 2003, at 13:44, Anthony Towns wrote:
Just because supporting non-free software doesn't have any moral value
for you, doesn't mean that's the same for everyone.
That would, I assume, be the reason we're voting on it.
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 01:54:39PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> Of course, that leaves voters without any way to express the
> >> opinion "change the Social Contract to not mandate non-free, but
> >> punt on the question of its actual removal", which is also a valid
> >> viewpoint.
> > [
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 09:36:41AM +0100, Peter Makholm wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
> > What you're saying above is that ideology should be *more important* than
> > pragmatism, since what goes in the social contract is definitively more
> > important than stuff that doesn't:
> No, I'm saying t
On Nov 4, 2003, at 13:44, Anthony Towns wrote:
Just because supporting non-free software doesn't have any moral value
for you, doesn't mean that's the same for everyone.
That would, I assume, be the reason we're voting on it.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubs
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 09:36:41AM +0100, Peter Makholm wrote:
> Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > What you're saying above is that ideology should be *more important* than
> > pragmatism, since what goes in the social contract is definitively more
> > important than stuff that doesn't:
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 04:18:46PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> It's not like they don't have other responsibilities. I think it's a
> little fantastic to try to form a picture in people's minds of the
> Debian archive administration team huddled over their terminals, their
> faces lit only by
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 04:18:46PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> It's not like they don't have other responsibilities. I think it's a
> little fantastic to try to form a picture in people's minds of the
> Debian archive administration team huddled over their terminals, their
> faces lit only by
On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 15:58:40 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Now, if this were part of the ballot; if I could chose
>>
>> a) remove clause 5, but do not remove non-free from the archive
>> b) remove clause 5, and clear the way to remove non-free as well
>>
>> then yes, we can
On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 16:06:48 +1000, Anthony Towns said:
> On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 10:39:56PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> > For reference, I wouldn't be. Either:
>> >Further, non-free and contrib shall be removed from the
>> >archive, and no longer supported by the Debian project.
>> >
On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 15:58:40 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Now, if this were part of the ballot; if I could chose
>>
>> a) remove clause 5, but do not remove non-free from the archive
>> b) remove clause 5, and clear the way to remove non-free as well
>>
>> then yes, we can
On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 16:06:48 +1000, Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 10:39:56PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> > For reference, I wouldn't be. Either:
>> >Further, non-free and contrib shall be removed from the
>> >archive, and no longer supported by the D
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 10:39:20PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 08:46:54PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 04:18:19AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 11:04:03PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > > > The draft so fa
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 04:18:46PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 08:46:54PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 04:18:19AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 11:04:03PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > > > The draft so
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 10:39:20PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 08:46:54PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 04:18:19AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 11:04:03PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > > > The draft so fa
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 04:18:46PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 08:46:54PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 04:18:19AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 11:04:03PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > > > The draft so
1 - 100 of 308 matches
Mail list logo
