> > > On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 01:04:33PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > > But what problem(s) are you solving, and how is this a better solution
> > > > than any of the other proposals?
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:57:14PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > What's your definition of a "problem"?
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:52:23AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 05:27:30PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > It is the process of voting which will enable us to measure what we want
> > to do. How we *act* upon that measurement is the "cutting".
>
> Yes, and making a res
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 05:24:16PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 01:04:33PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > But what problem(s) are you solving, and how is this a better solution
> > > than any of the other proposals?
>
> On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:57:14PM -0500, Branden Ro
> > > On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 01:04:33PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > > But what problem(s) are you solving, and how is this a better solution
> > > > than any of the other proposals?
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:57:14PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > What's your definition of a "problem"?
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:52:23AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 05:27:30PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > It is the process of voting which will enable us to measure what we want
> > to do. How we *act* upon that measurement is the "cutting".
>
> Yes, and making a res
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 05:24:16PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 01:04:33PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > But what problem(s) are you solving, and how is this a better solution
> > > than any of the other proposals?
>
> On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:57:14PM -0500, Branden Ro
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 05:27:30PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 12:37:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > So far, people seem to be taking the position that it will better to
> > > first vote on whether or not we're going to move in this direction (a
> > > super major
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 05:27:30PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 12:37:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > So far, people seem to be taking the position that it will better to
> > > first vote on whether or not we're going to move in this direction (a
> > > super major
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 12:37:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > So far, people seem to be taking the position that it will better to
> > first vote on whether or not we're going to move in this direction (a
> > super majority decision) and then, once that decision is made to focus
> > on the det
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 01:04:33PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > But what problem(s) are you solving, and how is this a better solution
> > than any of the other proposals?
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:57:14PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> What's your definition of a "problem"?
In this context
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 01:04:33PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> But what problem(s) are you solving, and how is this a better solution
> than any of the other proposals?
What's your definition of a "problem"?
--
G. Branden Robinson| You are not angry with people when
Debian GN
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 12:37:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > So far, people seem to be taking the position that it will better to
> > first vote on whether or not we're going to move in this direction (a
> > super majority decision) and then, once that decision is made to focus
> > on the det
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 01:04:33PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > But what problem(s) are you solving, and how is this a better solution
> > than any of the other proposals?
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:57:14PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> What's your definition of a "problem"?
In this context
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 01:04:33PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> But what problem(s) are you solving, and how is this a better solution
> than any of the other proposals?
What's your definition of a "problem"?
--
G. Branden Robinson| You are not angry with people when
Debian GN
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 05:05:33PM -0800, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:57:20AM -0600, Brian McGroarty wrote:
> > Instead of severing non-free all at once, why not try and phase it out
> > more progressively?
> It doesn't take a wild imagination to guess that if any proposal t
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 05:05:33PM -0800, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:57:20AM -0600, Brian McGroarty wrote:
> > Instead of severing non-free all at once, why not try and phase it out
> > more progressively?
> It doesn't take a wild imagination to guess that if any proposal t
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 05:05:33PM -0800, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> So far, people seem to be taking the position that it will better to
> first vote on whether or not we're going to move in this direction (a
> super majority decision) and then, once that decision is made to focus
> on the details.
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:57:20AM -0600, Brian McGroarty wrote:
> Instead of severing non-free all at once, why not try and phase it out
> more progressively?
It doesn't take a wild imagination to guess that if any proposal to
remove non-free passes it will either involve or lead to some sort of
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 05:05:33PM -0800, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> So far, people seem to be taking the position that it will better to
> first vote on whether or not we're going to move in this direction (a
> super majority decision) and then, once that decision is made to focus
> on the details.
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:57:20AM -0600, Brian McGroarty wrote:
> Instead of severing non-free all at once, why not try and phase it out
> more progressively?
It doesn't take a wild imagination to guess that if any proposal to
remove non-free passes it will either involve or lead to some sort of
Andrew Suffield wrote:
> One thing that we do learn from popularity-contest is that
> popularity-contest doesn't work. The sample size is too small.
That's why we've made popularity-contest be installed by default for
sarge. Of course the user still has to choose whether or not to turn it
on.
--
Andrew Suffield wrote:
> One thing that we do learn from popularity-contest is that
> popularity-contest doesn't work. The sample size is too small.
That's why we've made popularity-contest be installed by default for
sarge. Of course the user still has to choose whether or not to turn it
on.
--
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:57:20AM -0600, Brian McGroarty wrote:
> Instead of severing non-free all at once, why not try and phase it out
> more progressively?
Nobody did this until now. Why should somebody do it now? Those who'd
like to see non-free go probably don't want to 'get their hands dirt
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:57:20AM -0600, Brian McGroarty wrote:
> Instead of severing non-free all at once, why not try and phase it out
> more progressively?
Isn't "months" slow enough already?
> I would propose the next release include a package that periodically
> checks what non-free package
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:57:20AM -0600, Brian McGroarty wrote:
> Instead of severing non-free all at once, why not try and phase it out
> more progressively?
Nobody did this until now. Why should somebody do it now? Those who'd
like to see non-free go probably don't want to 'get their hands dirt
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:57:20AM -0600, Brian McGroarty wrote:
> I would propose the next release include a package that periodically
> checks what non-free packages are installed. The results would be sent
> to a Debian server for statistics gathering. The user would be
> prompted to enable the
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:57:20AM -0600, Brian McGroarty wrote:
> Instead of severing non-free all at once, why not try and phase it out
> more progressively?
Isn't "months" slow enough already?
> I would propose the next release include a package that periodically
> checks what non-free package
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:57:20AM -0600, Brian McGroarty wrote:
> I would propose the next release include a package that periodically
> checks what non-free packages are installed. The results would be sent
> to a Debian server for statistics gathering. The user would be
> prompted to enable the
28 matches
Mail list logo
