On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 10:45:11PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > www.debian.org/intro/organization lists the technical committee as
> > follows:
> >
> > Techinical Committee --
> > chairman Ian Jackson
> > member Manoj Srivastava
> > member Dale Scheetz
> >
On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 10:45:11PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > www.debian.org/intro/organization lists the technical committee as
> > follows:
> >
> > Techinical Committee -- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > chairman Ian Jackson
> > member Manoj Srivastava
> > member Dal
> www.debian.org/intro/organization lists the technical committee as
> follows:
>
> Techinical Committee --
> chairman Ian Jackson
> member Manoj Srivastava
> member Dale Scheetz
> member Guy Maor
> member Klee Dienes
> member Raul
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Branden Robinson) writes:
> I thought the chairman of the tech ctte was (still?) Ian Jackson.
>
> If it was/is you, then I retract the first bit of slander but not the
> second, because the Tech Ctte. Chairman needed to act.
www.debian.org/intro/organization lists the technica
On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 02:30:04PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 10:25:00PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > The Chairman of the Technical Committee, who is not a person known for
> > his active role in the project. He too has failed to discharge his
> > duties in a timely f
> www.debian.org/intro/organization lists the technical committee as
> follows:
>
> Techinical Committee -- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> chairman Ian Jackson
> member Manoj Srivastava
> member Dale Scheetz
> member Guy Maor
> member Klee Dienes
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Branden Robinson) writes:
> I thought the chairman of the tech ctte was (still?) Ian Jackson.
>
> If it was/is you, then I retract the first bit of slander but not the
> second, because the Tech Ctte. Chairman needed to act.
www.debian.org/intro/organization lists the technic
On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 02:30:04PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 10:25:00PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > The Chairman of the Technical Committee, who is not a person known for
> > his active role in the project. He too has failed to discharge his
> > duties in a timely
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 10:25:00PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> The Chairman of the Technical Committee, who is not a person known for
> his active role in the project. He too has failed to discharge his
> duties in a timely fashion.
Excuse me?
When? [If you mean allowing this social contrac
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 10:25:00PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> The Chairman of the Technical Committee, who is not a person known for
> his active role in the project. He too has failed to discharge his
> duties in a timely fashion.
Excuse me?
When? [If you mean allowing this social contra
On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 03:06:49AM -0500, Joseph Carter wrote:
> constitution's lead rather than trying to make an end-run around it, I
> will simply offer my personal opinion that given the opportunity I'd like
> to see the language forcing Debian to maintain non-free removed from the
> social con
On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 03:06:49AM -0500, Joseph Carter wrote:
> constitution's lead rather than trying to make an end-run around it, I
> will simply offer my personal opinion that given the opportunity I'd like
> to see the language forcing Debian to maintain non-free removed from the
> social co
For those lacking in time to read all of this, here's my second! Hell,
I'll even sign it while we're all proposing things.
On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 06:50:10AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Maybe we should use this as a chance to actually decide this issue in
> some sort of rational way.
Agreed.
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 04:39:14PM -0700, Shane Wegner wrote:
> > THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THE CONSTITUTION FOR REQUIRING A
> > SUPERMAJORITY FOR THIS GR.
> >
> > How can the Secretary interpret something that is absent?
>
> There was a proposal in a previous thread to require a 3/1
> majority on
For those lacking in time to read all of this, here's my second! Hell,
I'll even sign it while we're all proposing things.
On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 06:50:10AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Maybe we should use this as a chance to actually decide this issue in
> some sort of rational way.
Agreed.
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 04:39:14PM -0700, Shane Wegner wrote:
> > THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THE CONSTITUTION FOR REQUIRING A
> > SUPERMAJORITY FOR THIS GR.
> >
> > How can the Secretary interpret something that is absent?
>
> There was a proposal in a previous thread to require a 3/1
> majority o
On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 11:26:52AM +1100, Brendan O'Dea wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 12:42:17PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> >It scares me to no end that a single person in Debian, the project
> >secretary, can kill any proposal outright simply by ignoring it.
>
> There is provision in the Con
On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 11:26:52AM +1100, Brendan O'Dea wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 12:42:17PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> >It scares me to no end that a single person in Debian, the project
> >secretary, can kill any proposal outright simply by ignoring it.
>
> There is provision in the Co
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 12:42:17PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
>It scares me to no end that a single person in Debian, the project
>secretary, can kill any proposal outright simply by ignoring it.
There is provision in the Constitution (§7.2) for the Chairman of the
Technical Committee to make or d
Shane Wegner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There was a proposal in a previous thread to require a 3/1
> majority on such documents I believe. Would it not make
> sense to vote on that proposal in order to determine if a
> 3/1 vote is actually supported by Debian developers?
It would make sense.
Shane Wegner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There was a proposal in a previous thread to require a 3/1
> majority on such documents I believe. Would it not make
> sense to vote on that proposal in order to determine if a
> 3/1 vote is actually supported by Debian developers?
It would. The timing
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 12:42:17PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> It also scares me that people seem to be extending the Secretary's
> power to "interpret" the constitution to "amend the Constitution
> whenever he feels like it."
>
> I repeat again:
>
> THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THE CONSTITUTION FOR
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 12:42:17PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
>It scares me to no end that a single person in Debian, the project
>secretary, can kill any proposal outright simply by ignoring it.
There is provision in the Constitution (§7.2) for the Chairman of the
Technical Committee to make or
Shane Wegner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There was a proposal in a previous thread to require a 3/1
> majority on such documents I believe. Would it not make
> sense to vote on that proposal in order to determine if a
> 3/1 vote is actually supported by Debian developers?
It would make sense.
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 01:43:17AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> * From 27 July to 23 August, there was no traffic on -vote at all.
Hah, those good old days, when real work was getting accomplished.
--
Gopal Narayanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Debian GNU/Linux Developer
Dept. o
Shane Wegner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There was a proposal in a previous thread to require a 3/1
> majority on such documents I believe. Would it not make
> sense to vote on that proposal in order to determine if a
> 3/1 vote is actually supported by Debian developers?
It would. The timin
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 12:42:17PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> It also scares me that people seem to be extending the Secretary's
> power to "interpret" the constitution to "amend the Constitution
> whenever he feels like it."
>
> I repeat again:
>
> THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THE CONSTITUTION FO
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 01:43:17AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> As evidence for my assertion of expiry, I submit:
> [blahblahblah]
Maybe we should use this as a chance to actually decide this issue in
some sort of rational way.
First, we might need a new secretary. At the very least we seem
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 01:43:17AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> * From 27 July to 23 August, there was no traffic on -vote at all.
Hah, those good old days, when real work was getting accomplished.
--
Gopal Narayanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Debian GNU/Linux Developer
Dept.
In addition, it might be noted that per 7.2 the chariman of the
technical committee is to step in for the secretary if he is
unavailable. However, said chairman is IWJ... we know what that
means...
--
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> www.complete.org
Sr. Software Developer
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 01:43:17AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> As evidence for my assertion of expiry, I submit:
> [blahblahblah]
Maybe we should use this as a chance to actually decide this issue in
some sort of rational way.
First, we might need a new secretary. At the very least we seem
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 01:43:17AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Per section A.5 ("Expiry") of the constitution, I must point out that both
> John Goerzen's General Resolution regarding non-free, and Anthony Towns's
> amended version thereof (which per A.1.3 stands on its own as an
> independent
It scares me to no end that a single person in Debian, the project
secretary, can kill any proposal outright simply by ignoring it.
It also scares me that people seem to be extending the Secretary's
power to "interpret" the constitution to "amend the Constitution
whenever he feels like it."
I rep
In addition, it might be noted that per 7.2 the chariman of the
technical committee is to step in for the secretary if he is
unavailable. However, said chairman is IWJ... we know what that
means...
--
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> www.complete.org
Sr. Software Develope
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 01:43:17AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Per section A.5 ("Expiry") of the constitution, I must point out that both
> John Goerzen's General Resolution regarding non-free, and Anthony Towns's
> amended version thereof (which per A.1.3 stands on its own as an
> independen
It scares me to no end that a single person in Debian, the project
secretary, can kill any proposal outright simply by ignoring it.
It also scares me that people seem to be extending the Secretary's
power to "interpret" the constitution to "amend the Constitution
whenever he feels like it."
I re
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 01:43:17AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Per section A.5 ("Expiry") of the constitution, I must point out that both
> John Goerzen's General Resolution regarding non-free, and Anthony Towns's
> amended version thereof (which per A.1.3 stands on its own as an
> independent
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 01:43:17AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Per section A.5 ("Expiry") of the constitution, I must point out that both
> John Goerzen's General Resolution regarding non-free, and Anthony Towns's
> amended version thereof (which per A.1.3 stands on its own as an
> independen
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Per section A.5 ("Expiry") of the constitution, I must point out that both
> John Goerzen's General Resolution regarding non-free, and Anthony Towns's
> amended version thereof (which per A.1.3 stands on its own as an
> independent GR since John Goerz
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 01:43:17AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> The most generous (smallest) estimate of downtime is 20 July to 22 August,
> a period of 38 days. More than 4 weeks any way you slice it.
I apologize. My math here is wrong, but harmlessly so (fortunately).
20 21 22
Per section A.5 ("Expiry") of the constitution, I must point out that both
John Goerzen's General Resolution regarding non-free, and Anthony Towns's
amended version thereof (which per A.1.3 stands on its own as an
independent GR since John Goerzen did not accept it) have expired.
The entirety of s
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Per section A.5 ("Expiry") of the constitution, I must point out that both
> John Goerzen's General Resolution regarding non-free, and Anthony Towns's
> amended version thereof (which per A.1.3 stands on its own as an
> independent GR since John Goer
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 01:43:17AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> The most generous (smallest) estimate of downtime is 20 July to 22 August,
> a period of 38 days. More than 4 weeks any way you slice it.
I apologize. My math here is wrong, but harmlessly so (fortunately).
20 21 2
Per section A.5 ("Expiry") of the constitution, I must point out that both
John Goerzen's General Resolution regarding non-free, and Anthony Towns's
amended version thereof (which per A.1.3 stands on its own as an
independent GR since John Goerzen did not accept it) have expired.
The entirety of
44 matches
Mail list logo
