On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 09:11:02PM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 10:45:34AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > come to an agreement about what exactly in that email
> > constitutes the actual general resolution?
I second the following GR.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNE
On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 09:11:02PM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 10:45:34AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > come to an agreement about what exactly in that email
> > constitutes the actual general resolution?
>
> This:
>
> 1. We affirm that our Pr
Hi,
On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 10:45:34AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> come to an agreement about what exactly in that email
> constitutes the actual general resolution?
This:
1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 10:45:34AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Could the proposers or sponsors of the amendment
> ,
> | From: Frederik Schueler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> | Subject: kernel firmwares: GR proposal
> | To: debian-vote@lists.debian.org
> | Message-ID: <[EMAIL PRO
Hi,
Could the proposers or sponsors of the amendment
,
| From: Frederik Schueler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| Subject: kernel firmwares: GR proposal
| To: debian-vote@lists.debian.org
| Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
`
come to an agreement about what exactly in that email
cons
On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 02:40:04AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
> On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 07:21:12 +0200, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > This issue remains, and it is still not solved. This has got the
> > approval of Steve Langasek (who said that his proposal and this
> > where
Hi,
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 07:21:12 +0200, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> This issue remains, and it is still not solved. This has got the
> approval of Steve Langasek (who said that his proposal and this
> where orthogonal and a separate GR), of our DPL, who said he would
> postpone his ow
Manoj, ...
This issue remains, and it is still not solved. This has got the approval of
Steve Langasek (who said that his proposal and this where orthogonal and a
separate GR), of our DPL, who said he would postpone his own GR proposal for
post etch, as well as the proposer of this GR.
There also
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I am concerned with including in Debian firmwares whose license
>reduce the usefulness of Debian through obnoxious clauses
>that would also affect people that do not need the firwmare
>in the first place (e.g. by restricting distribution or use of packaging
>embedding the
On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 01:51:12PM -0500, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Hello GR proponents,
>
> before we vote I would very much appreciate example of firmware
> that would be affected by your proposal (and how).
>
> I already asked for something similar without answer in August.
>
> I am concerned
Hello GR proponents,
before we vote I would very much appreciate example of firmware
that would be affected by your proposal (and how).
I already asked for something similar without answer in August.
I am concerned with including in Debian firmwares whose license
reduce the usefulness of Debian
On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 10:56:58PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 09:03:14AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 12:11:08PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 05:54:25PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > We are quickly reaching the poi
On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 09:03:14AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 12:11:08PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 05:54:25PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > We are quickly reaching the point where holding a vote on this issue and
> > > still
> > > maintainin
On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 12:11:08PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 05:54:25PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > We are quickly reaching the point where holding a vote on this issue and
> > still
> > maintaining a timely etch release, so i believe that we should held a vote
> > o
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 05:54:25PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> We are quickly reaching the point where holding a vote on this issue and still
> maintaining a timely etch release, so i believe that we should held a vote on
> this issue sooner rather than later.
> This GR, which was seen by Steve as
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I thus propose that we held a vote ASAP, a real vote, not a poll, about what
> we are going to do about etch :
>
> 1) postpone the non-free firmware issue as proposed in this GR proposal.
> 2) delay etch until we finish discussing this issue and then im
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 11:40:06AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 05:09:36PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Mmm, i didn't see any December 29 proposal.
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200312/msg00044.html
Ah, ok, sure.
I thought that proposals should
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 11:40:06AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 05:09:36PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Mmm, i didn't see any December 29 proposal.
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200312/msg00044.html
Ah, ok, sure.
I thought that proposals should
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 05:09:36PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Mmm, i didn't see any December 29 proposal.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200312/msg00044.html
--
Raul
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 09:54:51PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:08:01PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:11:50PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:26:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > Since the non-free GR and t
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 05:09:36PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Mmm, i didn't see any December 29 proposal.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200312/msg00044.html
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 09:54:51PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:08:01PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:11:50PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:26:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > Since the non-free GR and t
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:08:01PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:11:50PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:26:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Since the non-free GR and the social contract modification GR
> > > encountered nothing but flamewar
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:04:11PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Yep. But then you all said this was stupid or something, that we were
> loosing time, and ... So, i actually changed minds, and was going to try
> doing a real proposal or something, but as i perfectly know that my
> writing is not of t
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:11:50PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:26:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Since the non-free GR and the social contract modification GR
> > encountered nothing but flamewar,
>
> [...]
>
> > Furthermore, i believe that the real issue is the
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 08:16:52PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:41:27PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Uhm, if it was not a GR proposal, then why did your message[13] say
> > > "non-free removal GR draft"?
> >
> > Please check the meaning of the word "draft" in the dic
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:08:01PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:11:50PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:26:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Since the non-free GR and the social contract modification GR
> > > encountered nothing but flamewar
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:04:11PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Yep. But then you all said this was stupid or something, that we were
> loosing time, and ... So, i actually changed minds, and was going to try
> doing a real proposal or something, but as i perfectly know that my
> writing is not of t
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:11:50PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:26:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Since the non-free GR and the social contract modification GR
> > encountered nothing but flamewar,
>
> [...]
>
> > Furthermore, i believe that the real issue is the
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 08:16:52PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:41:27PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Uhm, if it was not a GR proposal, then why did your message[13] say
> > > "non-free removal GR draft"?
> >
> > Please check the meaning of the word "draft" in the dic
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:41:27PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Uhm, if it was not a GR proposal, then why did your message[13] say
> > "non-free removal GR draft"?
>
> Please check the meaning of the word "draft" in the dictionary. Sure, i
> don't have the chance to be a native english speaker,
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 07:50:42PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:54:16AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:45:54PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Why are you opposing this. Just for the chance to discuss this to death
> > > another year or
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:26:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Since the non-free GR and the social contract modification GR
> encountered nothing but flamewar,
[...]
> Furthermore, i believe that the real issue is the non-free issue, and
> that the social contract GR is only a way to achieve a s
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 11:55:49AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > 4. Oppose GR proposals that cannot be actually voted on in any sane
> > >fashion due to being incompatible with procedures in the
> > >Constitution.
> >
> > (arg, it is difficult to resist being rude, arg, have to control
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:41:27PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Uhm, if it was not a GR proposal, then why did your message[13] say
> > "non-free removal GR draft"?
>
> Please check the meaning of the word "draft" in the dictionary. Sure, i
> don't have the chance to be a native english speaker,
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 07:50:42PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:54:16AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:45:54PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Why are you opposing this. Just for the chance to discuss this to death
> > > another year or
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:26:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Since the non-free GR and the social contract modification GR
> encountered nothing but flamewar,
[...]
> Furthermore, i believe that the real issue is the non-free issue, and
> that the social contract GR is only a way to achieve a s
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 11:55:49AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > 4. Oppose GR proposals that cannot be actually voted on in any sane
> > >fashion due to being incompatible with procedures in the
> > >Constitution.
> >
> > (arg, it is difficult to resist being rude, arg, have to control
[ General note: This message contains some history that may be of
interest regarding the previous attempts to get a vote on the topic. ]
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:32:49AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 12:07:14AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:44:33
[ General note: This message contains some history that may be of
interest regarding the previous attempts to get a vote on the topic. ]
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:32:49AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 12:07:14AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:44:33
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 12:07:14AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:44:33AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > John, you are a fraud, you don't really want to resolve this issue, only
>
> If that were the case, why did I:
>
> 1. Get this issue to a vote back in 2000[1] (though t
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:44:33AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> John, you are a fraud, you don't really want to resolve this issue, only
If that were the case, why did I:
1. Get this issue to a vote back in 2000[1] (though that vote was later
nullified);
2. Second the proposals before us now,
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:19:12AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 05:11:51PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > So, let's start from my poll draft, and let's vote on it.
> >
> > What do you thinkg ? Something like :
>
> I think that it's impossible to vote yes or no to a GR that
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 12:07:14AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:44:33AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > John, you are a fraud, you don't really want to resolve this issue, only
>
> If that were the case, why did I:
>
> 1. Get this issue to a vote back in 2000[1] (though t
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:44:33AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> John, you are a fraud, you don't really want to resolve this issue, only
If that were the case, why did I:
1. Get this issue to a vote back in 2000[1] (though that vote was later
nullified);
2. Second the proposals before us now,
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:19:12AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 05:11:51PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > So, let's start from my poll draft, and let's vote on it.
> >
> > What do you thinkg ? Something like :
>
> I think that it's impossible to vote yes or no to a GR that
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 08:17:39AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:26:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Ok, will you help me draft something, i am not really a good
> > administrative writer, but was thinking about something like :
> > begin of draft Poll to be submitt
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 08:17:39AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:26:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Ok, will you help me draft something, i am not really a good
> > administrative writer, but was thinking about something like :
> > begin of draft Poll to be submitt
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:54:16AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:45:54PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Why are you opposing this. Just for the chance to discuss this to death
> > another year or so ?
>
> No; for precisely the opposite reason. I want a vote now, and no po
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:19:12AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 05:11:51PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > So, let's start from my poll draft, and let's vote on it.
> >
> > What do you thinkg ? Something like :
>
> I think that it's impossible to vote yes or no to a GR that
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:54:16AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:45:54PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Why are you opposing this. Just for the chance to discuss this to death
> > another year or so ?
>
> No; for precisely the opposite reason. I want a vote now, and no po
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 05:11:51PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> So, let's start from my poll draft, and let's vote on it.
>
> What do you thinkg ? Something like :
I think that it's impossible to vote yes or no to a GR that contains 5
different, mutually exclusive, options.
Consider the below. H
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:19:12AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 05:11:51PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > So, let's start from my poll draft, and let's vote on it.
> >
> > What do you thinkg ? Something like :
>
> I think that it's impossible to vote yes or no to a GR that
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:54:16AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:45:54PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > The only way clearly say what will happen is to make it part of the
> > > ballot. Your poll will *not* say what will happen, and nobody else here
> > > can say what wi
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:34:45AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:26:18PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:19:37AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > Well, why not have a non-free GR, and add a social contract hostile
> > > amendment, so that people ca
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 05:11:51PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> So, let's start from my poll draft, and let's vote on it.
>
> What do you thinkg ? Something like :
I think that it's impossible to vote yes or no to a GR that contains 5
different, mutually exclusive, options.
Consider the below. H
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:19:37AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:07:13PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 08:54:32AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > Ah, sure, but see what happened last time this came up.
> >
> > And it would be hypocrit. The real issu
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 08:54:32AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:26:44PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Why would we want something non-binding? I cannot think of a single
> > > situation in which that will actually resolve anything.
> >
> > Why not ?
> >
> > Once we
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:45:54PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > The only way clearly say what will happen is to make it part of the
> > ballot. Your poll will *not* say what will happen, and nobody else here
> > can say what will happen either, because we do not know how a vote will
> > turn out.
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:54:16AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:45:54PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > The only way clearly say what will happen is to make it part of the
> > > ballot. Your poll will *not* say what will happen, and nobody else here
> > > can say what wi
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:26:18PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:19:37AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > Well, why not have a non-free GR, and add a social contract hostile
> > amendment, so that people can vote on both at once, and rank their
> > preferences appropriately?
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:34:45AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:26:18PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:19:37AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > Well, why not have a non-free GR, and add a social contract hostile
> > > amendment, so that people ca
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 08:17:39AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:26:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Ok, will you help me draft something, i am not really a good
> > administrative writer, but was thinking about something like :
> >
> > begin of draft Poll to be su
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:19:37AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:07:13PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 08:54:32AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > Ah, sure, but see what happened last time this came up.
> >
> > And it would be hypocrit. The real issu
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:07:13PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 08:54:32AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> Ah, sure, but see what happened last time this came up.
>
> And it would be hypocrit. The real issue is what do we want to do about
> non-free, not that we want to ammend
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 08:54:32AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:26:44PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Why would we want something non-binding? I cannot think of a single
> > > situation in which that will actually resolve anything.
> >
> > Why not ?
> >
> > Once we
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:45:54PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > The only way clearly say what will happen is to make it part of the
> > ballot. Your poll will *not* say what will happen, and nobody else here
> > can say what will happen either, because we do not know how a vote will
> > turn out.
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:26:44PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Why would we want something non-binding? I cannot think of a single
> > situation in which that will actually resolve anything.
>
> Why not ?
>
> Once we have the result of this, first it will put a stop to the whole
> speculation
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:26:18PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:19:37AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > Well, why not have a non-free GR, and add a social contract hostile
> > amendment, so that people can vote on both at once, and rank their
> > preferences appropriately?
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 08:17:39AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:26:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Ok, will you help me draft something, i am not really a good
> > administrative writer, but was thinking about something like :
> >
> > begin of draft Poll to be su
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:07:13PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 08:54:32AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> Ah, sure, but see what happened last time this came up.
>
> And it would be hypocrit. The real issue is what do we want to do about
> non-free, not that we want to ammend
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:26:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Ok, will you help me draft something, i am not really a good
> administrative writer, but was thinking about something like :
>
> begin of draft Poll to be submitted to vote
Why would we want something non-binding? I cannot
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:26:44PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Why would we want something non-binding? I cannot think of a single
> > situation in which that will actually resolve anything.
>
> Why not ?
>
> Once we have the result of this, first it will put a stop to the whole
> speculation
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:26:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Ok, will you help me draft something, i am not really a good
> administrative writer, but was thinking about something like :
>
> begin of draft Poll to be submitted to vote
Why would we want something non-binding? I cannot
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:02:41PM +0100, David N. Welton wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Yes, let's have a non-binding poll on this subject, so that this
> > meanigless flamewars can stop, and we can actually work on a way to
> > solve this following what the DDs really wan
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes, let's have a non-binding poll on this subject, so that this
> meanigless flamewars can stop, and we can actually work on a way to
> solve this following what the DDs really want to do.
By all means, let's vote on something already.
I'm against the i
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:02:41PM +0100, David N. Welton wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Yes, let's have a non-binding poll on this subject, so that this
> > meanigless flamewars can stop, and we can actually work on a way to
> > solve this following what the DDs really wan
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes, let's have a non-binding poll on this subject, so that this
> meanigless flamewars can stop, and we can actually work on a way to
> solve this following what the DDs really want to do.
By all means, let's vote on something already.
I'm against the i
78 matches
Mail list logo
