Re: [Notice] Social Contract Change Vote

2000-10-13 Thread Kai Henningsen
[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

Re: [Notice] Social Contract Change Vote

2000-10-13 Thread Kai Henningsen
[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 > >

Re: [Notice] Social Contract Change Vote

2000-10-13 Thread Sven LUTHER
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

Re: [Notice] Social Contract Change Vote

2000-10-13 Thread Sven LUTHER
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

Re: [Notice] Social Contract Change Vote

2000-10-12 Thread Mark Brown
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,

Re: [Notice] Social Contract Change Vote

2000-10-12 Thread Richard Braakman
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. >

Re: [Notice] Social Contract Change Vote

2000-10-12 Thread Mark Brown
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

Re: [Notice] Social Contract Change Vote

2000-10-12 Thread Richard Braakman
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. >

Re: [Notice] Social Contract Change Vote

2000-10-11 Thread Darren O. Benham
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

Re: [Notice] Social Contract Change Vote

2000-10-11 Thread Darren O. Benham
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

Re: [Notice] Social Contract Change Vote

2000-10-11 Thread Dale Scheetz
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

Re: [Notice] Social Contract Change Vote

2000-10-11 Thread Dale Scheetz
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

Re: [Notice] Social Contract Change Vote

2000-10-10 Thread Buddha Buck
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

Re: [Notice] Social Contract Change Vote

2000-10-10 Thread Darren O. Benham
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

Re: [Notice] Social Contract Change Vote

2000-10-10 Thread Buddha Buck
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

Re: [Notice] Social Contract Change Vote

2000-10-10 Thread Dale Scheetz
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

Re: [Notice] Social Contract Change Vote

2000-10-10 Thread Darren O. Benham
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

Re: [Notice] Social Contract Change Vote

2000-10-10 Thread Dale Scheetz
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.