On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 08:45:16PM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> If there was a GR which chainged the Debian Social contract which
> relaxed the first clause to only include __software__ running on the
> Host CPU, I would enthusiastically vote for such a measure.
I doubt that this a usable definiti
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 10:10:24PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> But the way you wrote in 4 as "we will make any private discussions
> publically available at the earliest opportunity." is problematic since
> it is 100% disclosure pledge. I suggest something along "we will make
> any private discussio
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 10:03:20AM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 03:02:41PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Using the word "software" as the basis for the divide might be too much:
> I'm not convinced that leaving important parts of Debian undocumented
> over doctrinal disput
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 03:16:05PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Mike Hommey:
>
> > On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 03:01:19PM +0100, Florian Weimer
> > wrote:
> >> * Theodore Tso:
> >>
> >> > I'm not ashamed at all; I joined before the 1.1 revision to the Debian
> >> > Social Contract, which I obje
* Gerfried Fuchs:
>> For instance, while I have no particular opinion on firmware, I object
>> to packages in main which, when run on a web browser, execute
>> proprietary Javascript blobs (either by shipping them in the package,
>> or by linking them in some way).
>
> But it is. The web browser
On Mon, 2008-12-29 at 23:27 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Whatever his motives, I think Ted's demonstrably done more to further the
> cause of free software than most developers, both by making Linux more
> and more usable for over 15 years now, and for helping other developers
> work together bett
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 04:20:28PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 09:11:01AM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> > FSF), Dynebolic, Musix GNU+Linux, BLAG, and Trisquel. So not only is
> > there one such distribution that takes free software of cardinal
> > importance, there are six
* Florian Weimer [2008-12-29 15:01:19 CET]:
> * Theodore Tso:
> > I'm not ashamed at all; I joined before the 1.1 revision to the Debian
> > Social Contract, which I objected to them, and I still object to now.
> > If there was a GR which chainged the Debian Social contract which
> > relaxed the f
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 7:54 AM, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 09:55:36PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> I wish we could have in the world of GNU/Linux one, just one,
>> please--just one--distribution which really took free software as of
>> cardinal importance. Debian ha
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 11:12:01AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> For someone that is in Debian for so long its pretty bad how one can
> misjudge it...
That's great.
> If you don't want them to release glibc as is, why didn't you upload a
> more suitable version?
I'm happy to delay the release in
rsion=3.1.7-deb3
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 11:39:25 +0100
To: Anthony Towns , lea...@debian.org,
da-mana...@debian.org, listmas...@debian.org, s...@powerlinux.fr
Cc: debian-vote@lists.debian.org, debian-de...@lists.debian.org,
Theodore Tso
Subject: Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenn
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 09:55:36PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> I wish we could have in the world of GNU/Linux one, just one,
> please--just one--distribution which really took free software as of
> cardinal importance. Debian has promised to be that, while living up to
> the promise only i
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 09:11:01AM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> As others have pointed out, there is such a distribution, gNewSense; in
> fact, if you look at [2], you will find that there are five others,
> Ututu (the first fully free GNU/Linux distribution recognized by the
> FSF), Dynebolic, Mu
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 03:02:41PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Using the word "software" as the basis for the divide might be too much:
> we've already done a lot of work restricting main to DFSG-free docs, and
> I think it makes sense to keep that. Having main be a functioning bunch
> of free st
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 09:55:36PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
> I would prefer this. But I am afraid of it, and so I would vote against
> it. I am afraid that there are folks in the project who really don't
> care if Debian is 100% free--even as a goal. I think that Ted Tso is
> even o
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 03:01:19PM +0100, Florian Weimer
wrote:
> * Theodore Tso:
>
> > I'm not ashamed at all; I joined before the 1.1 revision to the Debian
> > Social Contract, which I objected to them, and I still object to now.
> > If there was a GR which chainged the Debian Social contract
* Mike Hommey:
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 03:01:19PM +0100, Florian Weimer
> wrote:
>> * Theodore Tso:
>>
>> > I'm not ashamed at all; I joined before the 1.1 revision to the Debian
>> > Social Contract, which I objected to them, and I still object to now.
>> > If there was a GR which chainged t
This one time, at band camp, Clint Adams said:
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 12:48:24AM +, Simon Huggins wrote:
> > I thought FD was also a vote for "release Lenny" given it didn't change
> > the status quo and before the GR the release team were quite happy to
> > release...
>
> If you believe th
* Theodore Tso:
> I'm not ashamed at all; I joined before the 1.1 revision to the Debian
> Social Contract, which I objected to them, and I still object to now.
> If there was a GR which chainged the Debian Social contract which
> relaxed the first clause to only include __software__ running on th
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 09:55:36PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-12-29 at 15:02 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > I would personally prefer
> > for the project to have the freedom to decide those sorts of things
> > on a day-to-day basis through regular decision making [...]
> I wo
In linux.debian.vote Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>On Sun, 2008-12-28 at 20:45 -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
>> I'm not ashamed at all; I joined before the 1.1 revision to the Debian
>> Social Contract, which I objected to them, and I still object to now.
>> If there was a GR which chainged the Debian
In linux.debian.vote Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>I would prefer this. But I am afraid of it, and so I would vote against
>it. I am afraid that there are folks in the project who really don't
>care if Debian is 100% free--even as a goal. I think that Ted Tso is
>even one of them.
Count me in as
Hi,
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 03:02:41PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 08:45:16PM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 12:48:24AM +, Simon Huggins wrote:
> > > I wonder how many DDs were ashamed to vote the titled "Reaffirm the
> > > social contract" low
* Thomas Bushnell BSG [Sun, 28 Dec 2008 21:55:36 -0800]:
> I wish we could have in the world of GNU/Linux one, just one,
> please--just one--distribution which really took free software as of
> cardinal importance.
I don't like the wording of your sentence, but I'll point out that
gNewSense alrea
>> I thought FD was also a vote for "release Lenny" given it didn't change
>> the status quo and before the GR the release team were quite happy to
>> release...
> If you believe that the release team had the authority to release lenny
> with an arbitrary amount of non-free software, then yes, tha
On Mon, 29 Dec 2008, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Anyway, given the last proposal I made [0] went nowhere, unless people
> want to come up with their own proposals, or want to second the above as
> a draft proposal to be improved and voted on, I suspect nothing much will
> change, and we'll have this dis
On Mon, 2008-12-29 at 15:02 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> For example, having "non-free" in the archive and the BTS (and potentially
> buildds and elsewhere) is implied by point (3) (ie, supporting Debian
> users who choose to use non-free software to the best of our ability),
> and potentially usi
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 08:45:16PM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 12:48:24AM +, Simon Huggins wrote:
> > I wonder how many DDs were ashamed to vote the titled "Reaffirm the
> > social contract" lower than the choices that chose to release.
> I'm not ashamed at all; I joine
On Sun, 2008-12-28 at 20:45 -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 12:48:24AM +, Simon Huggins wrote:
> >
> > I wonder how many DDs were ashamed to vote the titled "Reaffirm the
> > social contract" lower than the choices that chose to release.
> >
>
> I'm not ashamed at all; I
On Mon, 2008-12-29 at 11:54 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> Some members do not agree that the supermajority-required ballot
> options actually required changes to the foundation documents, which
> is not a comment on how those people think supermajority requirements
> should be assigned.
> I can only
Anthony Towns wrote:
> Anyway, despite something kinda close to advocacy for the FD option in
> the second call for votes on d-d-a, FD lost convincingly to most of the
> options on offer. So of any conclusions you might draw, the simplest,
> safest and most easily justified seems to be "stop discus
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 12:48:24AM +, Simon Huggins wrote:
>
> I wonder how many DDs were ashamed to vote the titled "Reaffirm the
> social contract" lower than the choices that chose to release.
>
I'm not ashamed at all; I joined before the 1.1 revision to the Debian
Social Contract, which
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 01:07:33AM +, Clint Adams wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 12:48:24AM +, Simon Huggins wrote:
> > I thought FD was also a vote for "release Lenny" given it didn't change
> > the status quo and before the GR the release team were quite happy to
> > release...
> If you
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 12:48:24AM +, Simon Huggins wrote:
> I thought FD was also a vote for "release Lenny" given it didn't change
> the status quo and before the GR the release team were quite happy to
> release...
If you believe that the release team had the authority to release lenny
with
Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:
> On Sun, 2008-12-28 at 09:05 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > What this voting seems to show is that […] the mixing up of the
> > other options on this ballot and the way the supermajority
> > requirements were set is problematic, and probably supporters of
> > any oth
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 02:45:29AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Anyway, despite something kinda close to advocacy for the FD option in
> the second call for votes on d-d-a, FD lost convincingly to most of
> the options on offer. So of any conclusions you might draw, the
> simplest, safest and most
* Thomas Bushnell BSG (t...@becket.net) [081228 23:56]:
> On Sun, 2008-12-28 at 09:05 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > What this voting seems to show is that clearly a majority doesn't want to
> > stop the release of Lenny. What it also shows however is that the mixing up
> > of the other options on
On Sun, 2008-12-28 at 09:05 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> What this voting seems to show is that clearly a majority doesn't want to
> stop the release of Lenny. What it also shows however is that the mixing up
> of the other options on this ballot and the way the supermajority
> requirements were s
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 09:08:04PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Further discussion came sixth, beaten by between 95 votes (option 2),
> and 11 votes (option 6), with Reaffirm the social contract last, defeated
> by further discussion by 109 votes.
Oh, a further thought came to mind. One way to si
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 02:57:37PM +0100, Toni Mueller wrote:
> > Winner: Option 2: Allow Lenny to release with proprietary firmware
>
> considering all the problems around this particular GR, what's the best
> way to just "undo" this GR and go back to square one instead?
It seems to me the s
Hi,
On Sun, 28.12.2008 at 21:08:04 +1000, Anthony Towns
wrote:
> If you consider the same results, without the supermajority requirements
> for options 2, 3, 4 and 6, you get:
>
> Winner: Option 2: Allow Lenny to release with proprietary firmware
considering all the problems around this p
* Anthony Towns (a...@azure.humbug.org.au) [081228 11:51]:
> [ difference between options 2 and 5]
> It's possible that has no practical difference, in which case all the
> furour over the running of the vote has no practical effect.
Actually, if one reads the consitution the way I do (and where n
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 12:04:43AM +, devo...@vote.debian.org wrote:
> In the following table, tally[row x][col y] represents the votes that
> option x received over option y.
> Option
> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
> === === === ===
* devo...@vote.debian.org (devo...@vote.debian.org) [081228 00:47]:
> Dropping Option 1 because of Majority.
> (0.5176991150442477876106194690265486725664) 0.518 (117/226) < 1
> Dropping Option 2 because of Majority.
> (1.736434108527131782945736434108527131783) 1.736 (224/129) < 3
> Dropping O
44 matches
Mail list logo
