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 10:23:29PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 08:29:17AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > 1. Your proposal allows any nontechnical document defined by 4.1.5
> >to be modified
>
> ...and withdrawn...
>
> > 2. Manoj's proposal allows nontechnical do
John Goerzen writes:
> 4. During the Secretary's absence, the Constitution specifies that the
> chairman of the Technical Committee should step up in his place.
> However, that person is Ian Jackson and he failed with this duty. The
> Technical Committee have failed to replace him with someon
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1. The Secretary has made a decision by fiat stating that a 3:1
> supermajority is required for its passage, despite contradictory
> language in the Constitution.
John: I support your proposal, but that doesn't mean that every
decision that works against
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > explicitly provide for -any- method to modify the Social Contract. It
>
> It explicitly provides that: §4.1(5)
John: Again, I'm on your side here on the actual substantive issue.
But surely you can't be blind to the fact that the actual wording of
4.
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 10:54:26PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Eek, no. If Towns wanted a separate GR, he would have proposed one.
> > Instead, he proposed an *amendment*, which, if it succeeds, amends the
> > proposal, but does not thereb
Branden Robinson writes:
> His remains a strict superset of mine. If you feel I am being dishonest, I
> suggest you perform a diff of the actual texts of the proposed changes,
> excluding front matter in the mail messages, and the rationales.
I think dishonesty isn't the issue here. It seem
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
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 04:44:20PM -0400, Buddha Buck wrote:
> > 1. The Social Contract cannot be modified under the Debian Constitution.
>
> This is the least controversial interpretation, because it allows for very
> little subjective projection o
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000, Darren O. Benham wrote:
> What would you like to see?
Well, if you are trying to get a vote on whether or not to apply Anthony
Towns' ammendment, then the example ballot suggested by Buddha Buck is a
clear statement of what is being voted upon, and I could certainly submit
a
On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 03:25:07AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > explicitly provide for -any- method to modify the Social Contract. It
> >
> > It explicitly provides that: §4.1(5)
>
> John: Again, I'm on your side here on the actual substantive issue.
> But surely you can't be blind t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert D. Hilliard) writes:
> This is the heart of the matter. It is akin to the U.S.
> controversy over `activist' judges, who rule based on their beliefs of
> what should be, rather than on what the law says. At least in U.S.
> jurisprudence several levels of appellate
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 03:15:21PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> 4. During the Secretary's absence, the Constitution specifies that
> the chairman of the Technical Committee should step up in his place.
> However, that person is Ian Jackson and he failed with this duty.
> The Technical Committee hav
I admit that that ballot was unclear :( I did like Mr. Buck's ballot and I
received another good suggestion via private email.
On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 11:11:40AM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2000, Darren O. Benham wrote:
>
> > What would you like to see?
>
> Well, if you are tryi
Call me old fashioned, but I prefer to have the entire text of the
ballot item in the ballot. I don't like having a ballot initiative
which says yes or no but doesn't directly list the item for which we
are voting. I download my email to my laptop and read the email at my
convenience. I am not a
>>"Branden" == Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Branden> Yes. As you can see they are not "opposite" in any sense.
Branden> Both would permit non-technical documents to be explicitly
Branden> modified and withdrawn.
Branden> Manoj's further creates a class of non-technical docume
I'm talking about tm, which Gnus used previously, and was a lot
better that whatever it is that it uses now.
-- John
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>"John" == John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> John> Yeah, I ran into the same GNUS bug that someone else did -- namely
>>"John" == John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> Yeah, I ran into the same GNUS bug that someone else did -- namely
John> that it blindly deletes PGPMIME parts from a message, making it look
John> like there was no sig...
Gnus does not yet supprt PGPMIME. It may in the future
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
[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
[Please do not CC me on list mails.]
On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 04:50:03PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Indeed, given a choice of my proposal, doing nothing, and your
> proposal, that would be my ordering. In other words, I would prefer
> the flaw of not allowing any changes to non techni
> 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
On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 11:22:45PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> There are four possible paths:
>
> Ballot 1 Ballot 2 Outcome
> AJ's Amendment GR
> ===
> Yes NoNo change
> Yes Yes
On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 10:54:49AM +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> John Goerzen writes:
>
> > 4. During the Secretary's absence, the Constitution specifies that the
> > chairman of the Technical Committee should step up in his place.
> > However, that person is Ian Jackson and he failed with thi
On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 10:16:31PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> So the Chairman of the Technical Committee needs to be nagged to
> perform his duties? He can't be expected to subscribe to debian-vote
> and notice that weeks pass after a CFV and the Project Secretary still
> hasn't issued a ball
On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 10:19:14AM -0400, Robert D. Hilliard wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 04:44:20PM -0400, Buddha Buck wrote:
> > > 1. The Social Contract cannot be modified under the Debian Constitution.
> >
> > This is the least controver
On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 10:27:00AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert D. Hilliard) writes:
>
> > This is the heart of the matter. It is akin to the U.S.
> > controversy over `activist' judges, who rule based on their beliefs of
> > what should be, rather than on w
>>"John" == John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> I'm talking about tm, which Gnus used previously, and was a lot
John> better that whatever it is that it uses now.
Check your facts. Gnus never used tm, though you may have. The
tm folks are now producing semi-gnus, and you sho
>>"Branden" == Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Branden> You typically order "doing nothing" over just about anything
Branden> I've ever proposed or done, but I'm getting used to it.
I did not mean to be insulting. But yes, that has,
unfortunately, been true of most things
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
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 10:23:29PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 08:29:17AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > 1. Your proposal allows any nontechnical document defined by 4.1.5
> >to be modified
>
> ...and withdrawn...
>
> > 2. Manoj's proposal allows nontechnical d
John Goerzen writes:
> 4. During the Secretary's absence, the Constitution specifies that the
> chairman of the Technical Committee should step up in his place.
> However, that person is Ian Jackson and he failed with this duty. The
> Technical Committee have failed to replace him with someo
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 10:54:26PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Eek, no. If Towns wanted a separate GR, he would have proposed one.
> > Instead, he proposed an *amendment*, which, if it succeeds, amends the
> > proposal, but does not there
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1. The Secretary has made a decision by fiat stating that a 3:1
> supermajority is required for its passage, despite contradictory
> language in the Constitution.
John: I support your proposal, but that doesn't mean that every
decision that works agains
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > explicitly provide for -any- method to modify the Social Contract. It
>
> It explicitly provides that: §4.1(5)
John: Again, I'm on your side here on the actual substantive issue.
But surely you can't be blind to the fact that the actual wording of
4
Branden Robinson writes:
> His remains a strict superset of mine. If you feel I am being dishonest, I
> suggest you perform a diff of the actual texts of the proposed changes,
> excluding front matter in the mail messages, and the rationales.
I think dishonesty isn't the issue here. It see
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
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 04:44:20PM -0400, Buddha Buck wrote:
> > 1. The Social Contract cannot be modified under the Debian Constitution.
>
> This is the least controversial interpretation, because it allows for very
> little subjective projection
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000, Darren O. Benham wrote:
> What would you like to see?
Well, if you are trying to get a vote on whether or not to apply Anthony
Towns' ammendment, then the example ballot suggested by Buddha Buck is a
clear statement of what is being voted upon, and I could certainly submit
a
On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 03:25:07AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > explicitly provide for -any- method to modify the Social Contract. It
> >
> > It explicitly provides that: §4.1(5)
>
> John: Again, I'm on your side here on the actual substantive issue.
> But surely you can't be blind
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert D. Hilliard) writes:
> This is the heart of the matter. It is akin to the U.S.
> controversy over `activist' judges, who rule based on their beliefs of
> what should be, rather than on what the law says. At least in U.S.
> jurisprudence several levels of appellate
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 Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 03:15:21PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> 4. During the Secretary's absence, the Constitution specifies that
> the chairman of the Technical Committee should step up in his place.
> However, that person is Ian Jackson and he failed with this duty.
> The Technical Committee ha
I admit that that ballot was unclear :( I did like Mr. Buck's ballot and I
received another good suggestion via private email.
On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 11:11:40AM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2000, Darren O. Benham wrote:
>
> > What would you like to see?
>
> Well, if you are try
Call me old fashioned, but I prefer to have the entire text of the
ballot item in the ballot. I don't like having a ballot initiative
which says yes or no but doesn't directly list the item for which we
are voting. I download my email to my laptop and read the email at my
convenience. I am not
>>"Branden" == Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Branden> Yes. As you can see they are not "opposite" in any sense.
Branden> Both would permit non-technical documents to be explicitly
Branden> modified and withdrawn.
Branden> Manoj's further creates a class of non-technical docum
>>"John" == John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> Yeah, I ran into the same GNUS bug that someone else did -- namely
John> that it blindly deletes PGPMIME parts from a message, making it look
John> like there was no sig...
Gnus does not yet supprt PGPMIME. It may in the futur
I'm talking about tm, which Gnus used previously, and was a lot
better that whatever it is that it uses now.
-- John
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>"John" == John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> John> Yeah, I ran into the same GNUS bug that someone else did -- namely
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
[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
[Please do not CC me on list mails.]
On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 04:50:03PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Indeed, given a choice of my proposal, doing nothing, and your
> proposal, that would be my ordering. In other words, I would prefer
> the flaw of not allowing any changes to non techn
> 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
>
On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 11:22:45PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> There are four possible paths:
>
> Ballot 1 Ballot 2 Outcome
> AJ's Amendment GR
> ===
> Yes NoNo change
> Yes Yes
On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 10:54:49AM +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> John Goerzen writes:
>
> > 4. During the Secretary's absence, the Constitution specifies that the
> > chairman of the Technical Committee should step up in his place.
> > However, that person is Ian Jackson and he failed with th
On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 10:16:31PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> So the Chairman of the Technical Committee needs to be nagged to
> perform his duties? He can't be expected to subscribe to debian-vote
> and notice that weeks pass after a CFV and the Project Secretary still
> hasn't issued a bal
On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 10:19:14AM -0400, Robert D. Hilliard wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 04:44:20PM -0400, Buddha Buck wrote:
> > > 1. The Social Contract cannot be modified under the Debian Constitution.
> >
> > This is the least controve
On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 10:27:00AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert D. Hilliard) writes:
>
> > This is the heart of the matter. It is akin to the U.S.
> > controversy over `activist' judges, who rule based on their beliefs of
> > what should be, rather than on
>>"John" == John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> I'm talking about tm, which Gnus used previously, and was a lot
John> better that whatever it is that it uses now.
Check your facts. Gnus never used tm, though you may have. The
tm folks are now producing semi-gnus, and you sh
>>"Branden" == Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Branden> You typically order "doing nothing" over just about anything
Branden> I've ever proposed or done, but I'm getting used to it.
I did not mean to be insulting. But yes, that has,
unfortunately, been true of most thing
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Our stances on this are different. Almost diametrically
> opposing, as people havce pointed out. Mere polemics can't hide that
> fact.
And there's no point in trying to attach labels onto the proposals;
instead, we should presume that the d
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 03:00:29AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Indeed, I had proposed this in -project on the 19th of
> July. This addresses the same ambiguity that Brandon does in his
> proposal, but in a distincly different fashion. I would suggest that
> this should be offered as an
64 matches
Mail list logo
