On Sun, 24 Sep 2006, Don Armstrong wrote:
> Baring objection, I plan on calling for a vote with a suggested
> balot containing only this option in a few days (no later than
> 09-27).
As the Secretary has indicated that amendment proposed by Frans Pop
would be disparate from this one (and the simil
Le mardi 26 septembre 2006 à 17:46 -0500, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
> > I know I'm nitpicking, but isn't this whole thread about nitpicking?
> > ;)
>
> I don't know about you, bit for me this thread is about
> getting the right thing done, and getting the general resolutions
> resolved.
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 22:46:02 +0200, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Le mardi 26 septembre 2006 à 14:33 -0500, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
>> > I like the idea, but it eliminates some choices for the
>> > voter. With this setup, it is not possible to prioritize the
>> > firmware remova
Le mardi 26 septembre 2006 à 14:33 -0500, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
> > I like the idea, but it eliminates some choices for the voter. With
> > this setup, it is not possible to prioritize the firmware removal
> > over the release, while still considering other options
> > acceptable. How would I
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 20:50:08 +0200, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Le mardi 26 septembre 2006 à 11:15 -0500, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
>> > 2) joselin's : we make an indefinite exception for non-free
>> > firmware.
>>
>> This creates an exception clause to DFSG#2, and in af
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I like the idea, but it eliminates some choices for the voter. With this
> setup, it is not possible to prioritize the firmware removal over the
> release, while still considering other options acceptable. How would I
> be able to express the following
Le mardi 26 septembre 2006 à 11:15 -0500, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
> > 2) joselin's : we make an indefinite exception for non-free firmware.
>
> This creates an exception clause to DFSG#2, and in affect
> changes the DFSG until we have other technical means to ship non-free
> firmwa
On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 11:15:39AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 14:08:14 +0200, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > There are three proposals which are actually votable on :
>
> > 1) don's : reaffirm the current social contract, and non-free
> > firmware b
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How about:
>
> [ ] DFSG #2 applies to all programmatic works
> [ ] further discussion
>
> Followed by:
> [ ] Release Etch even with kernel freeware issues
> [ ] Special exception to DFSG#2 for firmware as long as required [needs 3:1]
> [ ] fu
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 14:08:14 +0200, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> There are three proposals which are actually votable on :
> 1) don's : reaffirm the current social contract, and non-free
> firmware belong in non-free.
According to the proposer, this should be:
1)
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 13:56:21 +0200, Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tuesday 26 September 2006 11:49, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> I agree with Don. If this proposal is going to go to a vote, it
>> should go to a vote separately from the votes about exceptions, so
>> that we can get a clear
On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 03:14:03PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> Le mar 26 septembre 2006 14:08, Sven Luther a écrit :
> > [ ] non-free firmware can be accepted in main (josselin) (needs 3:1)
>
> this is very poorly worded, joss proposition is not that at all, it's
> about allowing firmware i
On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 03:20:52PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mardi 26 septembre 2006 à 15:04 +0200, Frank Küster a écrit :
> > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > B) we do a single ballot :
> > >
> > > [ ] non-free firmware belong in non-free (don)
> > > [ ] non-
Le mar 26 septembre 2006 14:08, Sven Luther a écrit :
> [ ] non-free firmware can be accepted in main (josselin) (needs 3:1)
this is very poorly worded, joss proposition is not that at all, it's
about allowing firmware in main *until* a proper technical solution
exists.
and afaict Manoj never
Le mardi 26 septembre 2006 à 13:56 +0200, Frans Pop a écrit :
> On Tuesday 26 September 2006 11:49, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > I agree with Don. If this proposal is going to go to a vote, it should
> > go to a vote separately from the votes about exceptions, so that we can
> > get a clear answer to
On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 03:04:28PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > So, we have now two choices :
> >
> [...]
> > B) we do a single ballot :
> >
> > [ ] non-free firmware belong in non-free (don)
> > [ ] non-free firmware can be accepted in main
On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 01:20:12PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> So, you also agree that we need to :
> 1) first vote on the exception for etch.
> 2) in a second phase vote for what to do with non-free firmware ?
What? *Neither* of these is the subject of Don's resolution.
--
Steve Langasek
On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 02:49:29AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 11:32:59PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> > On Monday 25 September 2006 05:11, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > Baring objection, I plan on calling for a vote with a suggested balot
> > > containing only this option in a
On Tuesday 26 September 2006 11:49, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I agree with Don. If this proposal is going to go to a vote, it should
> go to a vote separately from the votes about exceptions, so that we can
> get a clear answer to the exception question without the outcome being
> tainted by either
Le mardi 26 septembre 2006 à 15:04 +0200, Frank Küster a écrit :
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > B) we do a single ballot :
> >
> > [ ] non-free firmware belong in non-free (don)
> > [ ] non-free firmware can be accepted in main (josselin) (needs 3:1)
This is not what t
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, we have now two choices :
>
[...]
> B) we do a single ballot :
>
> [ ] non-free firmware belong in non-free (don)
> [ ] non-free firmware can be accepted in main (josselin) (needs 3:1)
> [ ] make an exception for etch (frederik)
>
On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 04:34:22AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 01:20:12PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > So, you also agree that we need to :
>
> > 1) first vote on the exception for etch.
>
> > 2) in a second phase vote for what to do with non-free firmware ?
>
> W
On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 11:32:59PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Monday 25 September 2006 05:11, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > Baring objection, I plan on calling for a vote with a suggested balot
> > containing only this option in a few days (no later than 09-27).[1]
> > [The Secretary, of course, can o
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006, Steve Langasek wrote:
> And with my original proposal withdrawn, is it still your opinion
> that this resolution warrants a vote of its own?
It's not as important anymore, but it does resolve a few of the open
"how do we interpret what the DFSG says" questions in regards to
so
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Tuesday 26 September 2006 01:40, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > I agree that there are practical implications, and that something
> > should be done about them, but I think that they're out of scope for a
> > resolution whose purpose is to clarify how DFSG #2 sh
On Tuesday 26 September 2006 01:40, Don Armstrong wrote:
> I agree that there are practical implications, and that something
> should be done about them, but I think that they're out of scope for a
> resolution whose purpose is to clarify how DFSG #2 should be
> interpreted.
I stand by my opinion
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006, Frans Pop wrote:
> I strongly object to separating this proposal out and calling for a
> vote without any alternative proposals or amendments, for the
> foolowing reasons:
>
> 1) The proposal on its own adds nothing to the status quo: the SC is
> currently widely understood to
On Monday 25 September 2006 05:11, Don Armstrong wrote:
> Baring objection, I plan on calling for a vote with a suggested balot
> containing only this option in a few days (no later than 09-27).[1]
> [The Secretary, of course, can override this suggested ballot.]
I strongly object to separating th
Hi Don,
On Sun, Sep 24, 2006 at 08:11:58PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Sep 2006, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > As far as placing it or not placing it on a separate ballot, it
> > would be nice to have it separate, as it deals with clarifying the
> > firmware problem before exceptions are g
On Sun, 24 Sep 2006, Don Armstrong wrote:
> As far as placing it or not placing it on a separate ballot, it
> would be nice to have it separate, as it deals with clarifying the
> firmware problem before exceptions are granted, but I don't have any
> objections to it being on the same ballot as the
30 matches
Mail list logo
