[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Brown) wrote on 12.10.00 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 12:31:14PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
>
> > I don't think the Secretary should summarize proposals this way -- it's
> > almost impossible to do without bias. Presumably the proponents of
> > th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Brown) wrote on 12.10.00 in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 12:31:14PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
>
> > I don't think the Secretary should summarize proposals this way -- it's
> > almost impossible to do without bias. Presumably the proponents of
> >
On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 11:49:46AM -0700, Darren O. Benham wrote:
> I admit that that ballot was unclear :( I did like Mr. Buck's ballot and I
> received another good suggestion via private email.
Ok, now what, ...
Do you plan to remove the first two ballot and propose a new ballot that is
clear
On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 11:49:46AM -0700, Darren O. Benham wrote:
> I admit that that ballot was unclear :( I did like Mr. Buck's ballot and I
> received another good suggestion via private email.
Ok, now what, ...
Do you plan to remove the first two ballot and propose a new ballot that is
clea
On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 12:31:14PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> I don't think the Secretary should summarize proposals this way -- it's
> almost impossible to do without bias. Presumably the proponents of
> the proposals spent a lot of time crafting them to say exactly what
> they should say,
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 01:26:46PM -0400, Buddha Buck wrote:
> The main proposal under discussion is by John Goerzen, and can be found here:
> [LINK]. In summary, this proposal would AMEND the Debian Social Contract
> to eliminate the commitment to support for non-free on Debian's FTP servers.
>
On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 12:31:14PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> I don't think the Secretary should summarize proposals this way -- it's
> almost impossible to do without bias. Presumably the proponents of
> the proposals spent a lot of time crafting them to say exactly what
> they should say
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 01:26:46PM -0400, Buddha Buck wrote:
> The main proposal under discussion is by John Goerzen, and can be found here:
> [LINK]. In summary, this proposal would AMEND the Debian Social Contract
> to eliminate the commitment to support for non-free on Debian's FTP servers.
>
I admit that that ballot was unclear :( I did like Mr. Buck's ballot and I
received another good suggestion via private email.
On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 11:11:40AM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2000, Darren O. Benham wrote:
>
> > What would you like to see?
>
> Well, if you are tryi
I admit that that ballot was unclear :( I did like Mr. Buck's ballot and I
received another good suggestion via private email.
On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 11:11:40AM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2000, Darren O. Benham wrote:
>
> > What would you like to see?
>
> Well, if you are try
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000, Darren O. Benham wrote:
> What would you like to see?
Well, if you are trying to get a vote on whether or not to apply Anthony
Towns' ammendment, then the example ballot suggested by Buddha Buck is a
clear statement of what is being voted upon, and I could certainly submit
a
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000, Darren O. Benham wrote:
> What would you like to see?
Well, if you are trying to get a vote on whether or not to apply Anthony
Towns' ammendment, then the example ballot suggested by Buddha Buck is a
clear statement of what is being voted upon, and I could certainly submit
a
At 09:40 AM 10/10/00 -0700, Darren O. Benham wrote:
What would you like to see?
If I were a developer (is that a version of "I am not a developer, but..."
which was derided a while ago?)...
I'd love to see something like:
---
The main proposal
What would you like to see?
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 10:57:05AM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> The '[BALLOT] Social Contract Change' message was completely confusing. I
> have listened to the discussion on the list, and no one there seems to
> know how to mark the ballot either, although there is ple
At 09:40 AM 10/10/00 -0700, Darren O. Benham wrote:
>What would you like to see?
If I were a developer (is that a version of "I am not a developer, but..."
which was derided a while ago?)...
I'd love to see something like:
---
The main proposal u
The '[BALLOT] Social Contract Change' message was completely confusing. I
have listened to the discussion on the list, and no one there seems to
know how to mark the ballot either, although there is plenty of opinion
about what the ballot "means".
It is unclear what is actually being voted upon. I
What would you like to see?
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 10:57:05AM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> The '[BALLOT] Social Contract Change' message was completely confusing. I
> have listened to the discussion on the list, and no one there seems to
> know how to mark the ballot either, although there is pl
The '[BALLOT] Social Contract Change' message was completely confusing. I
have listened to the discussion on the list, and no one there seems to
know how to mark the ballot either, although there is plenty of opinion
about what the ballot "means".
It is unclear what is actually being voted upon.
18 matches
Mail list logo