On Wed, 26 May 2004 10:12:59 -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 09:24:19AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
>> > > Did the Technicall Committee really say officially that they
>> > > refuse to decide, or did only individual member say that they
>> > > prefer a G
On Thu, May 27, 2004 at 05:27:37AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Well, speaking of nonsensical... Do you really think "the Bible"::USA as
> "Microsoft's EULA"::Debian?
As an analogy, yes -- that's a significantly better analogy than "the
Bible"::USA and "the Social Contract"::Debian.
The US Const
On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 08:50:55AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > If the US were to adopt Debian's provisions, is there some reason to think
> > the Bible couldn't be a Foundational Document for the US?
> That's so nonsensical I can't begin to formulate an answer.
> Having the US adopt the Bible as
On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 05:50:05PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> With all due respect, but waiting for the tech-ctte in order to *speed
> up* the release of Sarge looks like a flakey plan to me, given the
> committee's track record in the last couple of years.
Yeah, it's true that there was an iss
On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 10:12:59AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 09:24:19AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > The technical committee has yet to issue any official opinion.
>
> In that case, I think it's premature to be this focused on the GRs
> until that has happened. I
On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 10:12:59AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> In that case, I think it's premature to be this focused on the GRs
> until that has happened. I at least would prefer to avoid a GR if the
> Technical Committee's opinion permits.
But the GR is already in progress.
You can vote
On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 09:24:19AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > Did the Technicall Committee really say officially that they refuse to
> > > decide, or did only individual member say that they prefer a GR?
>
> On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 09:08:47AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > After catching
> > Did the Technicall Committee really say officially that they refuse to
> > decide, or did only individual member say that they prefer a GR?
On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 09:08:47AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> After catching up on a week's shouting on debian-vote, I'm still
> looking for an ans
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 01:33:28PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > To the question whether the SC allows for Sarge to be released more
> > or less as it is currently, Anthony has clearly stated he delegates
> > the decision to the technical commity, whi
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 06:10:25PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Except the constitution doesn't say anything about pink tutus, and while
> > it does explicitly mention the social contract.
On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 02:17:27PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Sure. It says that it's crucial to the proj
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 06:10:25PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 06:32:49AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Yes, I am claiming it's inaccurate. The basis for claiming it's inaccurate
> > is that there's _no_ basis for it in the constitution.
> > The claim "We're required to do
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 08:20:28AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> I, for one, have not dismissed arguments that the social contract
> may allow us to follow the old release schedule, and that a strict
> interpretation of the social contract may not be correct. I just haven't
> seen any such arguments
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 08:20:28AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > > The constitution says that people may not actively work against
> > > > rules made under the constitution (which includes those in
> > > > foundation documents),
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 11:25:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> >
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 12:24:40PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 08:20:28AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > The constitution says that people may not actively work against rules made
> > > under the constitution (which includes those in foundation documents),
> On Tue, May 25,
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Folks have advocated that course of action: Thomas Bushnell and Manoj have
> both indicated they don't think the social contract needs to be followed
> so strictly as to require the release policy in question.
This is almost right, but not quite, and I
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 08:20:28AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > The constitution says that people may not actively work against rules made
> > under the constitution (which includes those in foundation documents),
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 11:25:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> The problem is tha
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 08:20:28AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 08:29:26PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Foundation documents aren't required to be "rules". They're not required
> > to be anything more than a "document or statement regarded as critical to
> > the Project's
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 08:29:26PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Foundation documents aren't required to be "rules". They're not required
> to be anything more than a "document or statement regarded as critical to
> the Project's mission and purposes." We could, if we wanted, regarded a
> piece of
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 04:24:52PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> I'm not sure that we could make the logo a foundation document without
> changing the constitution.
Well, we definitely can't: changing the constitution is how foundation
documents are added.
> The logo doesn't represent any rules t
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 01:34:20PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 06:52:37PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > Any textual basis for that claim?
> > Constitution, 4.1.5.3 "A Foundation Document requires a 3:1 majority
> > for its supersession."
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 04:59
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 01:34:20PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 06:52:37PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Any textual basis for that claim?
> Constitution, 4.1.5.3 "A Foundation Document requires a 3:1 majority
> for its supersession."
Yes, and? We could make the logo requ
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 08:19:10PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Graham Wilson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040524 20:10]:
> > On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 10:12:52AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > * Debian Project Secretary ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040523 23:55]:
> > > > I do not think we can over rid
* Graham Wilson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040524 20:10]:
> On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 10:12:52AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Debian Project Secretary ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040523 23:55]:
> > > I do not think we can over ride the constitution, and other
> > > foundation documents, with a simple posi
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 10:09:17AM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> Graham Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> > By program I mean everything that we formerly required to be distributed
> > under the DFSG,
>
> Huh? That's not a definition, especially since all this debate is about
> whether our pre
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 10:12:52AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Debian Project Secretary ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040523 23:55]:
> > I do not think we can over ride the constitution, and other
> > foundation documents, with a simple position statement; so I would
> > not think a simple positio
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 06:52:37PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Any textual basis for that claim?
Constitution, 4.1.5.3 "A Foundation Document requires a 3:1 majority
for its supersession."
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Conta
On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 05:44:06PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 12:33:58AM +0300, Riku Voipio wrote:
> > Short and sweet and lacks political hubbub. Just decide that we
> > shouldn't have to change release policy 6 months after the release
> > was supposed to happen. Why soul
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 10:09:17AM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
> > By program I mean everything that we formerly required to be distributed
> > under the DFSG,
> Huh? That's not a definition, especially since all this debate is about
> whether our previous formal requirements where different to our
Graham Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 04:35:58PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>> On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 08:27:02PM -0500, Graham Wilson wrote:
>> > How about:
>> >
>> > We, Debian developers, issue the statement:
>> >
>> > "On the question on what software shou
* Debian Project Secretary ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040523 23:55]:
> On Sat, 22 May 2004 01:41:13 +0200, Bill Allombert
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > 4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
>
> > 4.1. Powers
>
> >Together, the Developers may:
> > 5. Issue nontechnical
On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 04:22:38PM -0500, Graham Wilson wrote:
> On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 01:41:13AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> >-
> >
> > We, Debian developers, issue the statement:
> >
> > "On the question on what software should be allowed in the main section
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 12:33:58AM +0300, Riku Voipio wrote:
> Short and sweet and lacks political hubbub. Just decide that we
> shouldn't have to change release policy 6 months after the release
> was supposed to happen. Why sould really need to modify SC or
> foundation document for saying that?
On Sat, 22 May 2004 01:41:13 +0200, Bill Allombert
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> --
> 4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
> 4.1. Powers
>Together, the Developers may:
> 5. Issue nontechnical policy documents and statements. These
>
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 01:41:13AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
>-
>
> We, Debian developers, issue the statement:
>
> "On the question on what software should be allowed in the main section
> of our archive (The official Debian distribution) for our forthcoming
>
On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 03:15:54PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Whether or not it changed the SC is a matter for debate; but it is
> undisputed that the policies of the project did change drastically due
> to that GR.
Agreed.
> What would you suggest that paragraph should say in order to
> ac
On Sat, 22 May 2004 13:04:34 +0200, Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>> In the specific case of General Resolution 2004_003, since that
> release currently in preparation, code named "Sarge", is very close
> to release, and the previously released version is quite out of
> date, our comm
On Sat, 22 May 2004 01:41:13 +0200, Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> One of the point of contention is whether the meaning of the SC was
> changed by the latest GR, and if yes, in what ways. I don't feel it
> was changed at all myself, so I feel uneasy to vote in favor of a
> proposal w
On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 12:47:52PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Note, however, that if you work too hard to isolate the GR from the
> > underlying issues, we won't have much to go on for similar issues.
On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 12:06:06PM -0500, Graham Wilson wrote:
> I am not exactly sure I follo
On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 12:47:52PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 11:27:12AM -0500, Graham Wilson wrote:
> > Yes, I could understand wanting to avoid involving the meaning of the
> > social contract in the statement.
>
> Note, however, that if you work too hard to isolate the
On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 11:27:12AM -0500, Graham Wilson wrote:
> So, trying again, how about "the same criterion that were applied prior
> to GR 2004_003?" Does this avoid assuming the changes to the social
> contract were not editorial in nature?
Note that "editorial in nature" is largely irrelev
On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 11:27:12AM -0500, Graham Wilson wrote:
> Yes, I could understand wanting to avoid involving the meaning of the
> social contract in the statement.
Note, however, that if you work too hard to isolate the GR from the
underlying issues, we won't have much to go on for similar
On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 10:44:57AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 07:38:11PM -0500, Graham Wilson wrote:
> > On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 01:33:28PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> > > Was the GFDL used in woody at all?
> >
> > Regardless, I think the statement should use more defi
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 07:38:11PM -0500, Graham Wilson wrote:
> On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 01:33:28PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> > Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >-
> > >
> > > We, Debian developers, issue the statement:
> > >
> > > "On the question on
On Sat, 22 May 2004, Graham Wilson wrote:
> "On the question on what software should be allowed in the main section
> of our archive (The official Debian distribution) for our forthcoming
> release code-named Sarge, we resolve that all programs must meet the
I assume programs != firmwares
>
On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 04:35:58PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 08:27:02PM -0500, Graham Wilson wrote:
> > How about:
> >
> > We, Debian developers, issue the statement:
> >
> > "On the question on what software should be allowed in the main section
> > of our archiv
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 08:27:02PM -0500, Graham Wilson wrote:
> How about:
>
> We, Debian developers, issue the statement:
>
> "On the question on what software should be allowed in the main section
> of our archive (The official Debian distribution) for our forthcoming
> release code-named
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 07:38:11PM -0500, Graham Wilson wrote:
> On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 01:33:28PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> > Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >-
> > >
> > > We, Debian developers, issue the statement:
> > >
> > > "On the question on
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 01:33:28PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >-
> >
> > We, Debian developers, issue the statement:
> >
> > "On the question on what software should be allowed in the main section
> > of our archive (The
Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To the question whether the SC allows for Sarge to be released more
> or less as it is currently, Anthony has clearly stated he delegates
> the decision to the technical commity, which has replied that the
> developers could settle the issue by a GR.
D
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 05:12:06PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Unfortunately, none of the proposals so far address this issue directly,
> > but instead propose to modify again the SC, which is not something I
> > feel comfortable with.
>
Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Unfortunately, none of the proposals so far address this issue directly,
> but instead propose to modify again the SC, which is not something I
> feel comfortable with.
Manoj's proposal does not propose to do this, but instead enacts
comprehensive gui
51 matches
Mail list logo
