On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 10:39:45AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > I would reasonably assume (obviously a mistake when dealing with
> > bureacracies) that if the secretary needs to make a decision, they should
> > interpret the constitution, not throw it out and do whatever the hell they
> >
On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 12:52:02PM -0700, Seth Arnold wrote:
> > To return to the crux of the biscuit, article 1 of the social contract says
> > that commercial software will not be part of the "distribution", period.
> > Five then says that we will offer commercial software via FTP, those
> > con
> unzip should be in main now - it's now got a free license.
Clarification: unzip is in non-US/main in woody, for those who didn't find it.
On Sep 29, Joseph Carter wrote:
> Unfortunately, I think this also brings to light what is IMO a shortcoming
> of Wichert's leadership of the project. He hasn't even commented on this
> subject and has essentially taken no steps to do anything about it.
> Ignoring problems won't make them go away.
> > > I would reasonably assume (obviously a mistake when dealing with
> > > bureacracies) that if the secretary needs to make a decision, they should
> > > interpret the constitution, not throw it out and do whatever the hell they
> > > want.
On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 10:39:45AM -0700, Thomas Bushn
>>"Joseph" == Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Joseph> That's debatable.. More and more a lot of people who
Joseph> actually care about free software are feeling that Debian has
Joseph> become apathetic toward it and are trying to push the other
...who really care about free
On Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 06:30:17AM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> On Sep 29, Joseph Carter wrote:
> > Unfortunately, I think this also brings to light what is IMO a shortcoming
> > of Wichert's leadership of the project. He hasn't even commented on this
> > subject and has essentially taken no ste
On Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 02:04:19AM -0500, Joseph Carter wrote:
> Show me where in the constitution it says that votes should be broken in
> half and that ammendments may be voted on before the ballot for the
> proposal they are attached to is posted.
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to get
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 04:31:56AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> There hasn't been any other attempt to reconcile the above three points
> of view. So much for consensus building.
So, uh, would anyone like to actual suggest some course of action that
might be acceptable to everyone, rather than ju
On Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 03:24:48AM -0500, Joseph Carter wrote:
>On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 12:52:02PM -0700, Seth Arnold wrote:
>> I imagine some other people might miss their rsa and idea modules for
>> gpg. (Which reminds me, why is the rsa module for gpg still in non-free?)
>
>And why are people st
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You can't because it ain't there. The only thing the constitution says
> about any of this is that the secretary may make a decision. Apparently,
> that decision need not be otherwise constitutional. I don't believe this
> was intended. I don't belie
Joseph Carter wrote:
> Without regard to constitutionality, I believe there are technical reasons
> why non-free should remain a little while longer. Netscape is the biggest
> of them at the moment since currently Mozilla is not ready to replace it.
However, I find konqueror (in kdebase) quite ab
On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 12:52:02PM -0700, Seth Arnold wrote:
> > To return to the crux of the biscuit, article 1 of the social contract says
> > that commercial software will not be part of the "distribution", period.
> > Five then says that we will offer commercial software via FTP, those concept
> unzip should be in main now - it's now got a free license.
Clarification: unzip is in non-US/main in woody, for those who didn't find it.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sep 29, Joseph Carter wrote:
> Unfortunately, I think this also brings to light what is IMO a shortcoming
> of Wichert's leadership of the project. He hasn't even commented on this
> subject and has essentially taken no steps to do anything about it.
> Ignoring problems won't make them go away
> > > I would reasonably assume (obviously a mistake when dealing with
> > > bureacracies) that if the secretary needs to make a decision, they should
> > > interpret the constitution, not throw it out and do whatever the hell they
> > > want.
On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 10:39:45AM -0700, Thomas Bush
>>"Joseph" == Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Joseph> That's debatable.. More and more a lot of people who
Joseph> actually care about free software are feeling that Debian has
Joseph> become apathetic toward it and are trying to push the other
...who really care about free
On Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 06:30:17AM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> On Sep 29, Joseph Carter wrote:
> > Unfortunately, I think this also brings to light what is IMO a shortcoming
> > of Wichert's leadership of the project. He hasn't even commented on this
> > subject and has essentially taken no st
On Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 02:04:19AM -0500, Joseph Carter wrote:
> Show me where in the constitution it says that votes should be broken in
> half and that ammendments may be voted on before the ballot for the
> proposal they are attached to is posted.
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to get
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 04:31:56AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> There hasn't been any other attempt to reconcile the above three points
> of view. So much for consensus building.
So, uh, would anyone like to actual suggest some course of action that
might be acceptable to everyone, rather than j
On Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 03:24:48AM -0500, Joseph Carter wrote:
>On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 12:52:02PM -0700, Seth Arnold wrote:
>> I imagine some other people might miss their rsa and idea modules for
>> gpg. (Which reminds me, why is the rsa module for gpg still in non-free?)
>
>And why are people s
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You can't because it ain't there. The only thing the constitution says
> about any of this is that the secretary may make a decision. Apparently,
> that decision need not be otherwise constitutional. I don't believe this
> was intended. I don't beli
Joseph Carter wrote:
> Without regard to constitutionality, I believe there are technical reasons
> why non-free should remain a little while longer. Netscape is the biggest
> of them at the moment since currently Mozilla is not ready to replace it.
However, I find konqueror (in kdebase) quite a
23 matches
Mail list logo
