Re: CRA and PLD vote status

Ilu writes: > Am 08.12.23 um 21:13 schrieb Russ Allbery: >> How about: >> CRA and PLD proposals include regulations detrimental to FOSS > This would be real-english-english? ;-) If it has the same meaning, fine > by me. I've pinged Santiago. Yeah, casually you would normally stick "that w

Re: CRA and PLD vote status

On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 at 23:04, Bart Martens wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 10:06:45PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On 08/12/23 at 21:58 +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > > > [ ] Choice 1: CRA and PLD proposals include regulations detrimental to > > > FOSS > > > [ ] Choice 2: The EU sh

Re: CRA and PLD vote status

On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 10:06:45PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > Hi, > > On 08/12/23 at 21:58 +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > > [ ] Choice 1: CRA and PLD proposals include regulations detrimental to FOSS > > [ ] Choice 2: The EU should clarify that non-commercial FOSS is exempted > > "non-commercial

Re: CRA and PLD vote status

El 08/12/23 a las 21:37, Ilu escribió: > Am 08.12.23 um 21:13 schrieb Russ Allbery: > > Ilu writes: > > > > > CRA + PLD proposals include regulations, that will be detrimental > > > to FOSS > > > > How about: > > > > CRA and PLD proposals include regulations detrimental to FOSS > > > > T

Re: CRA and PLD vote status

Hi, On 08/12/23 at 21:58 +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > [ ] Choice 1: CRA and PLD proposals include regulations detrimental to FOSS > [ ] Choice 2: The EU should clarify that non-commercial FOSS is exempted "non-commercial FOSS" sounds like CC BY-NC-SA (which is not FOSS). What this option is trying

Re: CRA and PLD vote status

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 10:39:38PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > Hi, > > I've updated the page at https://www.debian.org/vote/2023/vote_002 which > the current status. Here is the draft ballot: Voting period starts 2023-12-09 00:00:00 UTC Votes must be received by

Re: CRA and PLD vote status

Am 08.12.23 um 21:13 schrieb Russ Allbery: Ilu writes: CRA + PLD proposals include regulations, that will be detrimental to FOSS How about: CRA and PLD proposals include regulations detrimental to FOSS This would be real-english-english? ;-) If it has the same meaning, fine by me. I

Re: CRA and PLD vote status

Ilu writes: > CRA + PLD proposals include regulations, that will be detrimental > to FOSS How about: CRA and PLD proposals include regulations detrimental to FOSS -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)

Re: CRA and PLD vote status

Am 08.12.23 um 20:55 schrieb Judit Foglszinger: The CRA and PLD proposals include regulations, that will be detrimental to free and open source software We've never had such a long option, and I'm worried this will break for some people trying to vote when it gets wrapped to the next line. But

Re: CRA and PLD vote status

> > The CRA and PLD proposals include regulations, that will be detrimental > > to free and open source software > > We've never had such a long option, and I'm worried this will break for > some people trying to vote when it gets wrapped to the next line. But it > might also just be fine. There i

Re: CRA and PLD vote status

On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 08:43:33PM +0100, Ilu wrote: > The CRA and PLD proposals include regulations, that will be detrimental > to free and open source software We've never had such a long option, and I'm worried this will break for some people trying to vote when it gets wrapped to the next line

Re: CRA and PLD vote status

The CRA and PLD proposals include regulations, that will be detrimental to free and open source software Am 08.12.23 um 20:40 schrieb Kurt Roeckx: The CRA and PLD will be detrimental to open source software

Re: CRA and PLD vote status

lot options text? > > > > Kurt > > > > On November 30, 2023 12:39:38 AM GMT+03:00, Kurt Roeckx > > wrote: > > >Hi, > > > > > >I've updated the page at https://www.debian.org/vote/2023/vote_002 which > > >the current status.

Re: CRA and PLD vote status

t Roeckx > wrote: > >Hi, > > > >I've updated the page at https://www.debian.org/vote/2023/vote_002 which > >the current status. > > > >We're at the maximum discussion period of 3 weeks, so the vote will > >probably start the 10th of December. > > > > > >Kurt > > --

Re: CRA and PLD vote status

Can people make suggestions for the ballot options text? Kurt On November 30, 2023 12:39:38 AM GMT+03:00, Kurt Roeckx wrote: >Hi, > >I've updated the page at https://www.debian.org/vote/2023/vote_002 which >the current status. > >We're at the maximum discussion pe

CRA and PLD vote status

Hi, I've updated the page at https://www.debian.org/vote/2023/vote_002 which the current status. We're at the maximum discussion period of 3 weeks, so the vote will probably start the 10th of December. Kurt

Re: Status of proposal E (SC change + non-free-firmware in installer)

Russ Allbery dijo [Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 10:52:46AM -0700]: > If we happen to fall down this leg of the Trousers of Time, I would be > inclined to explicitly reinstate option A in any SC ballot options that > would make A consistent with the SC as revised. > > In practice, I think this specific out

Re: Status of proposal E (SC change + non-free-firmware in installer)

Gunnar Wolf writes: > Now, my thinking wandered off to the following timeline: > almost-nowoVoting is open with the A,B,C,D,E option set. > |We know the Secretary has warned that some options > |winning might trigger his obligation to mark the >

Re: Status of proposal E (SC change + non-free-firmware in installer)

Russ Allbery dijo [Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 01:38:59PM -0700]: > Hi all, > > Moving this into a separate thread from all the discussion for a bit more > visibility. > > Thank you for all the discussion over the past couple of days about my > proposal and about possible rewordings to point 5 of the So

Re: Status of proposal E (SC change + non-free-firmware in installer)

Holger Levsen writes: > or maybe, it's possible to reword option E, because my only problem > is with the last sentence which reads > "We will publish these images as official Debian media, replacing > the current media sets that do not include non-free firmware packages." > and which I'd rath

Re: Status of proposal E (SC change + non-free-firmware in installer)

Hi Russ, thank you for working on option E! :) that said, I think I want option F, where F is to E what B is to A, (according how I read https://www.debian.org/vote/2022/vote_003 now) or IOW, option E where both types of installers (with and without non-free firmwarez) are offered. (so a new opti

Status of proposal E (SC change + non-free-firmware in installer)

Hi all, Moving this into a separate thread from all the discussion for a bit more visibility. Thank you for all the discussion over the past couple of days about my proposal and about possible rewordings to point 5 of the Social Contract. The short summary is that, after considering that feedback

Status of resolution process GR

We're coming up on the formal end of the discussion period following the last formal change, so I wanted to give people a quick update and plan for the timing of a vote. I haven't gotten any feedback on the last version of the proposal, and I know a lot of people are away for vacation. I'm theref

Re: Vote status

On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 02:20:13AM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > The vote is running, you can send the emails. You will not get a > ack about your vote until I can look at what's broken, which will > hopefully be tomorrow evening. If you received an error message, I > can reprocess your email. There

Vote status

The vote is running, you can send the emails. You will not get a ack about your vote until I can look at what's broken, which will hopefully be tomorrow evening. If you received an error message, I can reprocess your email. There is no reason to revote at the moment. If you did vote properly you sh

Re: OpenRC + Hurd status (was: [Proposal] GR: Selecting the default init system for Debian)

erwise it continues to use the Hurd specific boot hack thing...). Then just install OpenRC on top of that: apt-get install openrc I'm not sure installing sysv-rc is even needed. Probably installing OpenRC first, then the other sysvinit packages would work as well. There's nothing mor

Re: Your opinion on Debian Maintainer status

Wouter Verhelst wrote: >That's a good > thing for everyone; and it also explains why occasionally the NM > frontdesk will waive this policy for people who are 'obviously' ready to > become a Debian Developer *now* rather than in six month

Re: Your opinion on Debian Maintainer status

Moray Allan > On 2013-03-18 12:45, Charles Plessy wrote: > > Perhaps the candidates can comment on the fact that this already been > > raised > > last year > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/07/msg00716.html > > I didn't see this subthread at the time. > > From reading it, I can

Re: Your opinion on Debian Maintainer status

On 2013-03-18 12:45, Charles Plessy wrote: Perhaps the candidates can comment on the fact that this already been raised last year http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/07/msg00716.html I didn't see this subthread at the time. From reading it, I can't understand why no one who took the

Re: Your opinion on Debian Maintainer status

Hi, On 18/03/13 at 18:45 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > Le Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 10:32:09AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit : > > On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 09:56:16AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > > Also, the wiki has pages for http://wiki.debian.org/DebianDeveloper > > > but also for http://wik

Re: Your opinion on Debian Maintainer status

Hi Jonathan, On 18-03-13 08:49, Jonathan Nieder wrote: [...DM status before entering NM...] > I do not even agree that it is useful as a stepping stone. > > DM privileges recognize that a contributor should not have to wait on > a DD to apply improvements within a specific domain

Re: Your opinion on Debian Maintainer status

Le Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 10:32:09AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit : > On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 09:56:16AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > Also, the wiki has pages for http://wiki.debian.org/DebianDeveloper > > but also for http://wiki.debian.org/DebianProjectMember that says: > > "Debian Develop

Re: Your opinion on Debian Maintainer status

o the Debian New >>>>> Member Process" [1]. That's somewhat different to the original idea of >>>>> the DM status and not really a direction we should endorse. > [...] >>> Note that, first, the NM frontdesk has always been willing to fast-track >

Re: Your opinion on Debian Maintainer status

On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 09:56:16AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > Also, the wiki has pages for http://wiki.debian.org/DebianDeveloper > but also for http://wiki.debian.org/DebianProjectMember that says: > "Debian Developers are Debian Project Member with uploading rights" As observed in the past,

Re: Your opinion on Debian Maintainer status

On 18/03/13 at 00:20 +0300, Moray Allan wrote: > I am not happy that: > > - People have gone for DM status because it's easier to get, but > then not gone on to become project members, in many more cases than > because they actively don't want to have full rights.

Re: Your opinion on Debian Maintainer status

On 16/03/13 at 22:13 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > Hello, > > while reviewing the vote that introduced the Debian Maintainer status > in 2007 (http://www.debian.org/vote/2007/vote_003_tally.txt) I noticed > that Lucas voted in favor and that Moray voted against it. > > Mo

Re: Your opinion on Debian Maintainer status

ot; [1]. That's somewhat different to the original idea of >>>> the DM status and not really a direction we should endorse. [...] >> Note that, first, the NM frontdesk has always been willing to fast-track >> someone who is "obviously" skilled (with

Re: Your opinion on Debian Maintainer status

On 2013-03-17 14:50, Moray Allan wrote: On 2013-03-17 00:13, Raphael Hertzog wrote: while reviewing the vote that introduced the Debian Maintainer status in 2007 (http://www.debian.org/vote/2007/vote_003_tally.txt) I noticed that Lucas voted in favor and that Moray voted against it. Moray

Re: Your opinion on Debian Maintainer status

On 2013-03-17 14:50, Moray Allan wrote: On 2013-03-17 00:13, Raphael Hertzog wrote: while reviewing the vote that introduced the Debian Maintainer status in 2007 (http://www.debian.org/vote/2007/vote_003_tally.txt) I noticed that Lucas voted in favor and that Moray voted against it. Moray

Re: Your opinion on Debian Maintainer status

ss" [1]. That's somewhat different to the original idea of >>> the DM status and not really a direction we should endorse. > [...] >> Thank you, for reminding me of that. I haven't looked at that page since >> I re-applied, and almost forgot those words. We re

Re: Your opinion on Debian Maintainer status

On 2013-03-17 00:13, Raphael Hertzog wrote: while reviewing the vote that introduced the Debian Maintainer status in 2007 (http://www.debian.org/vote/2007/vote_003_tally.txt) I noticed that Lucas voted in favor and that Moray voted against it. Moray, why did you vote against? I'll foll

Re: Your opinion on Debian Maintainer status

On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 12:37:35AM +0100, Arno Töll wrote: > Thus, the sheer number of DMs is not a really a resilient number per se, > although I agree that the DM status itself is a good procedure. FWIW, a more relevant number is the number of packages in the archive "maintained by D

Re: Your opinion on Debian Maintainer status

at different to the original idea of >> the DM status and not really a direction we should endorse. [...] > Thank you, for reminding me of that. I haven't looked at that page since > I re-applied, and almost forgot those words. We really should reconsider > that paragraph, and pref

Re: Your opinion on Debian Maintainer status

Arno Töll writes: > On 17.03.2013 00:01, Gergely Nagy wrote: >> We have close to two hundred entries in the debian-maintainers-keyring, >> that's a respectable number, which reaffirms my recentish change of >> heart, that the DM status is a good thing, and while it does

Re: Your opinion on Debian Maintainer status

]. That's somewhat different to the original idea of > the DM status and not really a direction we should endorse. While I wouldn't make DM-ship an absolute requirement of the NM process, I think that it's generally a good idea to encourage contributors to become a DM first. My own e

Re: Your opinion on Debian Maintainer status

Hi, On 17.03.2013 00:01, Gergely Nagy wrote: > We have close to two hundred entries in the debian-maintainers-keyring, > that's a respectable number, which reaffirms my recentish change of > heart, that the DM status is a good thing, and while it does not solve > all problems, it

Your opinion on Debian Maintainer status

Hello, while reviewing the vote that introduced the Debian Maintainer status in 2007 (http://www.debian.org/vote/2007/vote_003_tally.txt) I noticed that Lucas voted in favor and that Moray voted against it. Moray, why did you vote against? Does that still hold or did you change your mind in

Re: RFC: General resolution: Clarify the status of the social contract

I think we need this clarification, so people no longer accuse > other people of malfeasance based on a flawed understanding on the > correct status of foundation documents. I am sure this wouldn't help at all, except if we'd vote for the first option, which I believe would mean f

Re: RFC: General resolution: Clarify the status of the social contract

On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 02:52:03PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > As far as voting for a position statement along the lines of "the social > contract doesn't matter, we'll upload Microsoft Word into main, yay!", > I believe that would also require a simple majority (1:1) to pass, What you're say

Re: RFC: General resolution: Clarify the status of the social contract

Russ Allbery dijo [Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 12:18:01PM -0800]: > Some possible options for that body: > > * The DPL (advantage: most directly representative governance figure) > > * The Secretary (advantage: not directly representative and hence somewhat > akin to a Supreme Court judge in the US le

Re: Status of Lenny Release GR

Bdale Garbee dijo [Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 08:59:19AM -0700]: > The closing time specified in the original call for votes was in error, > as the timing was supposed to be shortened for discussion periods but > not the actual voting interval. Thus, I believe the vote in process > should properly end a

Re: RFC: General resolution: Clarify the status of the social contract

On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 08:23:27AM +, Matthew Johnson wrote: > If this vote is 1:1 then there's no point in the 3:1 requirement since > you can just ignore them with a 1:1 vote. When we (using the term > loosely, since it doesn't include me) voted in the constitution, surely > the 3:1 requireme

Re: RFC: General resolution: Clarify the status of the social contract

Manoj Srivastava wrote: > I like the idea of clarifying what the principles of the project > actually are, since, as aj said, all the decisions about lenny would > fall out from the position the project take about the foundation > documents. While I have always thought that "foundation" implied  t

Re: Status of Lenny Release GR

On Sat, 2008-12-20 at 09:02 -0600, Kevin Glynn wrote: > What is the current status of the Lenny Release GR? The vote is in process. > Since then I have seen a proposal from Manoj to extend it a week and > calls for it to be suspended, but I don't see a message confirming

Status of Lenny Release GR

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 What is the current status of the Lenny Release GR? According to http://www.debian.org/vote/2008/vote_003 voting hasn't started yet, but I know it did ... Looking at the debian-vote archive I see Manoj started the vote here: <87

Re: RFC: General resolution: Clarify the status of the social contract

On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 05:08:57PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > The social contract is supposedly a contract. The Social Contract is not a contract (even though it is called that - but I believe the name is an intentional reference to a famous concept in political philosophy). A contr

Re: RFC: General resolution: Clarify the status of the social contract

On Fri Dec 19 20:55, Raphael Geissert wrote: > > ,[ The social contract is a non-binding advisory document ] > > | This amends the proposal above, and replaces the text of the proposal > > | with: The developers, via a general resolution, determine that the > > | social contract is a stateme

Re: RFC: General resolution: Clarify the status of the social contract

On Sat Dec 20 14:52, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 08:31:34PM +, Matthew Johnson wrote: > > I assume any final proposal would explicitly amend the SC/constitution > > to state this. In fact, I'm tempted to say that _all_ of these should > > include SC/Constitution amendments to

Re: RFC: General resolution: Clarify the status of the social contract

On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:10:25PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: > > ,[ The social contract is a goal, not a binding contract ] > > | This amends the proposal above, and replaces the text of the proposal > > | with: The developers, via a general resolution, determine that the > > | social cont

Re: RFC: General resolution: Clarify the status of the social contract

On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 12:18:01PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > I think these have the same flaw as our current situation: none of them > state who interprets the Social Contract and the DSFG if there is a > dispute over what they mean. If there is a dispute in Debian, there are three levels at

Re: RFC: General resolution: Clarify the status of the social contract

> On Fri Dec 19 21:10, Robert Millan wrote: > > > ,[ The social contract is binding but may be overridden by a simple > > > GR ] > > > | This amends the proposal above, and replaces the text of the proposal > > > | with: The developers, via a general resolution, determine that the > > > | s

Re: RFC: General resolution: Clarify the status of the social contract

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Hi, > > I like the idea of clarifying what the principles of the project > actually are, since, as aj said, all the decisions about lenny would > fall out from the position the project take about the foundation

Re: RFC: General resolution: Clarify the status of the social contract

On Fri, Dec 19 2008, Luk Claes wrote: > Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I like the idea of clarifying what the principles of the project >> actually are, since, as aj said, all the decisions about lenny would >> fall out from the position the project take about the foundation >> d

Re: RFC: General resolution: Clarify the status of the social contract

Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Hi, > > I like the idea of clarifying what the principles of the project > actually are, since, as aj said, all the decisions about lenny would > fall out from the position the project take about the foundation > documents. While I have always thought that "fou

Re: RFC: General resolution: Clarify the status of the social contract

Le Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 01:38:33PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit : > > [ ] The Social contract is a binding contract > [ ] The social contract is binding, but currently flawed > [ ] The social contract is binding but may be overridden by a simple GR > [ ] The social contract is a goal, n

Re: RFC: General resolution: Clarify the status of the social contract

On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 12:18:01PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > If we're going to have a vote on this topic, I feel quite strongly that > every option which states the social contract is binding should include in > it a constitutional amendment specifying *who* decides for the project > what those

Re: RFC: General resolution: Clarify the status of the social contract

Manoj Srivastava writes: > I do ont think that determining who interprets the > non-constitution foundation documents belongs on the same ballot. That seems entirely reasonable to me, and I agree on the undesireability of combinatorial explosion of the ballot. > It is a flaw in the co

Re: RFC: General resolution: Clarify the status of the social contract

[ ] The Social contract is a binding contract, DPL interprets [ ] The Social contract is a binding contract, secretary interprets [ ] The Social contract is a binding contract, tech ctte interprets [ ] The Social contract is a binding contract, individuals interpret [ ] The Social contrac

Re: RFC: General resolution: Clarify the status of the social contract

On Fri, Dec 19 2008, Russ Allbery wrote: > Manoj Srivastava writes: > >> I think we will keep coming back to this biennial spate of >> disagreement we have, as we determine whether or not we can release >> with firmware blobs or what have you. This also would help developers, >> the ft

Re: RFC: General resolution: Clarify the status of the social contract

On Fri Dec 19 21:10, Robert Millan wrote: > > ,[ The social contract is binding but may be overridden by a simple GR ] > > | This amends the proposal above, and replaces the text of the proposal > > | with: The developers, via a general resolution, determine that the > > | social contract sh

Re: RFC: General resolution: Clarify the status of the social contract

Manoj Srivastava writes: > I think we will keep coming back to this biennial spate of > disagreement we have, as we determine whether or not we can release > with firmware blobs or what have you. This also would help developers, > the ftp-masters, and the release team with a clear cut

Re: RFC: General resolution: Clarify the status of the social contract

On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 01:38:33PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > ,[ The Social contract is a binding contract ] > | The developers, via a general resolution, determine that the social > | contract should apply to everything Debian does, now and in the future; > | _AND_ the social contract

RFC: General resolution: Clarify the status of the social contract

awed understanding on the correct status of foundation documents. I do have an ulterior motive: clarifying this will help those of us currently evaluating whether this is the project they signed up for, and whether we want to continue to be a part of it. Some of the options above, if they

Re: Unclear license status for prospective package ht2html

Sorry this mail was of course for debian-legal. -- Nicolas Duboc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pgpsQawSZd0fV.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: Unclear license status for prospective package ht2html

On Wed, Oct 3, 2007 at 15:30:34 +0200, Nicolas Duboc wrote: >Hi, > > I'm considering packaging ht2html [1] for Debian, mainly because the > Jython package I'm working on uses it to build its documentation. > Did you mean to send this to -legal? Cheers, Julien -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email t

Unclear license status for prospective package ht2html

rsow to ask him a clarification but, as ht2html is rather an old and not really active project, I fear he won't be inclined to release a new version. Is a new tarball with clear copyright notices mandatory for Debian ? Would an email stating the copyright and licensing status of ht2ht

Re: Project leader platform status

Hi, On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 11:52:44 -0600, Debian Project Secretary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > I plan on publishing whatever I have tomorrow, and limit our > schedule slippage. I have just committed the platforms to webwml CVS, so they should get installed in due course (less than 4 ho

Project leader platform status

Hi, So far, I have received 5 out of the 9 platforms, which squeezes the window for the debates, since we should like to have the rebuttals up in place before the debates take place. So, candidates, if you have not already sent in your platform to [EMAIL PROTECTED], please do s

Re: Status of recall and affimation resolutions

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 12:12:04 -0500, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 23:20:35 +0200, Denis Barbier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > said: >> It seems more logical to me to have a separate ballot for the recall >> vote; > Apart from the fact that these are under separat

Re: Status of recall and affimation resolutions

On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 12:12:04PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 23:20:35 +0200, Denis Barbier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > It seems more logical to me to have a separate ballot for the recall > > vote; > > Apart from the fact that these are under separate sectio

Re: Status of recall and affimation resolutions

Le mercredi 04 octobre 2006 à 12:12 -0500, Manoj Srivastava a écrit : > Which is better. But the consensus seems to be emerging that > these are separate issues, an d separate ballots look like: > > [ ] Recall > [ ] Do not recall > [ ] FD Whose proposal is "do not recall"? I'm afra

Status of recall and affimation resolutions

On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 23:20:35 +0200, Denis Barbier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > It seems more logical to me to have a separate ballot for the recall > vote; Apart from the fact that these are under separate sections of the constitution (recall §4.1, position statement §4.5) and thus argua

Shipping Status, Package Number : 33263PJ67106XA

Check Below: mkbizz.com/track.php?cg=1&c=t It's kind of fun to do the impossible. Walt Disney Do those plumbers always remember jumping?

Re: _Our_ resolution merely affirms the status quo

On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 06:32:48AM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote: > On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 01:03:43AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > > I'm disappointed at the amount of nonsense being posted in this thread > > along the following lines: > > > > But this is no excuse for arguing the legal technicali

Re: _Our_ resolution merely affirms the status quo

On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 06:32:11AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > * Graham Wilson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040605 06:25]: > > By dropping proposal F from the ballot, we are dropping the only > > proposal that does not support releasing Sarge as is. We will not drop a > > proposal simply because you disa

Re: _Our_ resolution merely affirms the status quo

On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 06:32:11 +0200, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > * Graham Wilson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040605 06:25]: >> On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 11:01:18AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: >> > I think that you also mean me with your mail. Perhaps you're >> > right, and it may be the best t

Re: _Our_ resolution merely affirms the status quo

* Graham Wilson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040605 06:25]: > On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 11:01:18AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > > I think that you also mean me with your mail. Perhaps you're right, > > and it may be the best to drop both proposals F and G from the ballot. > > I wouldn't stand in the way of

Re: _Our_ resolution merely affirms the status quo

On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 11:01:18AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > I think that you also mean me with your mail. Perhaps you're right, > and it may be the best to drop both proposals F and G from the ballot. > I wouldn't stand in the way of dropping both proposals together from > the ballot, and vote

Re: _Our_ resolution merely affirms the status quo

Andrew M.A. Cater writes ("Re: _Our_ resolution merely affirms the status quo"): > I posted a comment a long time ago, which might bear repeating > (something close to the text below IIRC). > > The Debian developers changed their policy and fundamental documents > when

Re: _Our_ resolution merely affirms the status quo

On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 01:03:43AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > I'm disappointed at the amount of nonsense being posted in this thread > along the following lines: > > But this is no excuse for arguing the legal technicalities (`what does > the Social Contract mean') as opposed to the moral/practic

Re: _Our_ resolution merely affirms the status quo

* Ian Jackson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040602 07:10]: > I'm disappointed at the amount of nonsense being posted in this thread > along the following lines: > [...] > Now of course I have an opinion about what the Social Contract says > and I think people who disagree either have poor reading comprehens

_Our_ resolution merely affirms the status quo

it's ambiguous and vague ? But the Fundamental Documents are completely unambiguous and support my view of the Status Quo that garlic tastes nice. (... clueful people have another go ...) But it is clear as the light of day that our Fundamental Documents say that garlic is nice ! T

Re: GR status

Hello Manoj, On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 12:31:41PM -0600, Debian Project secretary wrote: > Proposer: Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Seconds:1. Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 2. Kyle McMartin [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 3. Clint Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] >

Re: GR status

Hello Manoj, On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 12:31:41PM -0600, Debian Project secretary wrote: > Proposer: Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Seconds:1. Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 2. Kyle McMartin [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 3. Clint Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] >

Re: GR status

w you could arrive at that illogical >> conclusion, but hey. > > It delays the vote in order to add a second "status quo" option to the > ballot. Not sure it delays the vote, and I, as several others, want to clearly state that we want to continue our support of the non-f

Re: GR status

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 11:44:25 +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > It delays the vote in order to add a second "status quo" option to > the ballot. In what way exactly is the default option not the status quo? manoj -- Sometimes even to live is an

Re: GR status

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 11:44:25 +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Modifying the amendment to delete part or all of the original > proposal does not seem to be one of the Secretary's powers, or do > you consider wording just a matter of procedure? If the amendment > wishes to delete things, *

Re: GR status

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 11:44:25 +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Modifying the amendment to delete part or all of the original > proposal does not seem to be one of the Secretary's powers, or do > you consider wording just a matter of procedure? If the amendment > wishes to delete things, *

Re: GR status

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 11:44:25 +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > It delays the vote in order to add a second "status quo" option to > the ballot. In what way exactly is the default option not the status quo? manoj -- Sometimes even to live is an

Re: GR status

w you could arrive at that illogical >> conclusion, but hey. > > It delays the vote in order to add a second "status quo" option to the > ballot. Not sure it delays the vote, and I, as several others, want to clearly state that we want to continue our support of the non-free archive, GR are made for this. -- Rémi Vanicat

  1   2   3   >