On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 03:32:41PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> But I don't see how this fits in with the constitution. We're operating,
> I presume, under the `standard resolution procedure', ie appendix A. We've
> has a proposal (Branden's, I guess) which has been proposed and seconded,
> and we
On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 02:33:56AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 03:32:41PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > But I don't see how this fits in with the constitution. We're operating,
> > I presume, under the `standard resolution procedure', ie appendix A. We've
> > has a pr
On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 03:49:15PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> We aren't? Then why do both Branden's and Manoj's proposals have separate
> lists of seconds?
For the same reason my resolution and John Goerzen's non-free one do.
They're separate resolutions.
> If A.3.1 doesn't apply, surely A.3.
Anthony Towns writes:
> Then how can they possibly be voted on together?
Because their proponents, seconders, and the Secretary think this is
the most sensible way to proceed, and they're right. And you think
they're right, and nobody's said they're wrong. If you like, we can
shuttle all this
On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 05:36:23PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 02:33:56AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 03:32:41PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > But I don't see how this fits in with the constitution. We're operating,
> > > I presume, under
On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 02:44:34AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 03:49:15PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > We aren't? Then why do both Branden's and Manoj's proposals have separate
> > lists of seconds?
> For the same reason my resolution and John Goerzen's non-free one
On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 03:04:08AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 05:36:23PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Then how can they possibly be voted on together?
> Under A.2.3.
3. The person who calls for a vote states what they believe the
wordings of the resoluti
On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 06:34:38PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> If you look through the constitution, nothing anywhere gives any hint that
> distinct proposals may be voted on concurrently, so I hope you'll forgive
> me if I didn't take that interpretation.
Concurrently? The consitution neither
On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 06:40:03PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 03:04:08AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 05:36:23PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > Then how can they possibly be voted on together?
> > Under A.2.3.
>
> 3. The person who ca
On Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 08:50:07PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > should i be required to support your proposal against my will and
> > judgement? i'm certainly not going to vote for it so you lose
> > nothing - and i imagine that you should be
On Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 08:50:07PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > should i be required to support your proposal against my will and
> > judgement? i'm certainly not going to vote for it so you lose nothing -
> > and i imagine that you should be
On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 04:08:21AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 06:34:38PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Well, no. People (well, at least one of them) think the only
> > constitutionally sound way of offering an alternative to be voted on
> I guess voting NO is not a
On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 07:15:19PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 08:50:07PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > [stuff]
> [more stuff]
Thomas, why did you resend this spectacle of private mail to the lists?
It's *private* *mail*. Treat it as such. For the sanity of the
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Perhaps this is because Branden only pointed out the expiry
> after the ballot was issued?
I believe that is incorrect. Furthermore, the Secretary considered
Branden's point and ruled it incorrect before.
I am unsure what is the more scary precedent
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > However, by the same token, I am EXTREMELY concerned and VERY unhappy
> > that YOUR own IRRRESPONSIBILITY and flagrant disregard of your duties,
> > responsibilities, and the Constitution have put us
Anthony Towns writes:
> On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 11:31:13AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > I am of very mixed feelings about this announcement.
>
> No wonder. The possiblity that something might actually happen, and that
> we might not have months more of tedious flamewars about procedural issues
listen dickhead, if you're going to request that i not email you
privately then the onus is on you to not write inflammatory crap that
requires a response.
btw, it's interesting to see that a debian developer is threatening to
infringe my copyright by posting my private messages to a public forum.
Robert Woodcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 07:15:19PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 08:50:07PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > [stuff]
> > [more stuff]
>
> Thomas, why did you resend this spectacle of private mail to the lists?
>
> I
Robert Woodcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It's *private* *mail*. Treat it as such. For the sanity of the rest of us.
More to the point: if a Debian developer is sending me hateful and
abusive mail, I want the rest of the Project to know about it.
On 13 Nov 2000, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Robert Woodcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 07:15:19PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > > On Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 08:50:07PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > > [stuff]
> > > [more stuff]
> >
> > Thomas, why did y
On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 10:01:39AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > It's *private* *mail*. Treat it as such. For the sanity of the rest of us.
>
> More to the point: if a Debian developer is sending me hateful and
> abusive mail, I want the rest of the Project to know about it.
I'm not i
John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ignoring is one thing, I respect your right to do it, but calling for
> public muzzling is out of line. He has as much right to be heard as
> yourself, so I think it only fair that if he goes, so do you.
That's fine; if you want Craig to continue to post v
Christian Surchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > More to the point: if a Debian developer is sending me hateful and
> > abusive mail, I want the rest of the Project to know about it.
>
> I'm not interested in your flames. I consider *someone* is sending mail
> to you, a Debian developer is a pe
* Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001113 11:11]:
> That's fine; if you want Craig to continue to post vituperative email,
> beyond all pale of human decency, feel free. But I will insist that
> it is inappropriate for Debian developers to send such mail in the
> course of Debian business
No, the months of tedious flamewars were brought about by your
hypocritical, ill-advised, and divisive GR. The DPS is not completely
blameless in this issue, but "let ye who is without sin cast the first
stone" and brother that places you at the end of the line. It's amazing
how you shield the f
John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No, the months of tedious flamewars were brought about by your
> hypocritical, ill-advised, and divisive GR. The DPS is not completely
> blameless in this issue, but "let ye who is without sin cast the first
> stone" and brother that places you at the end o
On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 11:13:55AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> I'm not sure what you are saying. Are you saying that Craig is a
> person, and so we should not care if he says hateful things?
I don't think that personal contrasts should be discussed here, in
particular if they have no in
[please don't cc: me on replies]
On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 10:01:39AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Robert Woodcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > It's *private* *mail*. Treat it as such. For the sanity of the rest of us.
>
> More to the point: if a Debian developer is sending me hateful an
On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 10:01:39AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > It's *private* *mail*. Treat it as such. For the sanity of the rest of us.
>
> More to the point: if a Debian developer is sending me hateful and
> abusive mail, I want the rest of the Project to know about it.
Yeah, but
On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 04:08:21AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> There is also A.3.6.
> In cases of doubt the Project Secretary shall decide on matters of
> procedure (for example, whether particular amendments should be considered
> independent or not).
That's probably reasonable.
> > W
On 13 Nov 2000, John Goerzen wrote:
> John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > No, the months of tedious flamewars were brought about by your
> > hypocritical, ill-advised, and divisive GR. The DPS is not completely
> > blameless in this issue, but "let ye who is without sin cast the first
>
On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 05:36:23PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > Then how can they possibly be voted on together?
On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 03:04:08AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Under A.2.3.
>
> 3. The person who calls for a vote states what they believe the
>wordings of the
I want to say that while I've been a little critical of Darren's
absence recently, I have great respect for him, and I'm encouraged
that things are moving again. Nothing that I said was intended to
criticize his ability or willingness to do a difficult job, and I'm
glad that things are moving alo
If that is what it looks like, I must be giving off the wrong
impression. I did not oppose Branden when he initially advanced the
idea that it had expired. Also, I am waiting to re-propose it until
after we have decided with more clarity the Constitutional issues that
Branden's and/or Manoj's pro
> Since we're already using a Condorcet-base scheme, it's probably best to
> keep doing that (ie, keeping the "foo DOMINATES bar"). From the latter
> URL, it seems that "Tideman" and "Schulze" are probably the most suitable
> (they're not vulnerable to most of the nasty strategies). Mike Ossipoff
>
Well, your e-mail was so illogical and senseless that I almost wonder
if it's worth my time reading it, but I'll reply anyway.
John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On what basis do you claim it's "extra-constitutional"?
>
> Simple, there is nothing within the constitution that allows amendi
On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 02:44:34AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 03:49:15PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > We aren't? Then why do both Branden's and Manoj's proposals have separate
> > lists of seconds?
> For the same reason my resolution and John Goerzen's non-free one
On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 03:04:08AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 05:36:23PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Then how can they possibly be voted on together?
> Under A.2.3.
3. The person who calls for a vote states what they believe the
wordings of the resolut
On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 06:34:38PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> If you look through the constitution, nothing anywhere gives any hint that
> distinct proposals may be voted on concurrently, so I hope you'll forgive
> me if I didn't take that interpretation.
Concurrently? The consitution neither
On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 06:40:03PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 03:04:08AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 05:36:23PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > Then how can they possibly be voted on together?
> > Under A.2.3.
>
> 3. The person who c
On Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 08:50:07PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > should i be required to support your proposal against my will and
> > judgement? i'm certainly not going to vote for it so you lose
> > nothing - and i imagine that you should b
On Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 08:50:07PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > should i be required to support your proposal against my will and
> > judgement? i'm certainly not going to vote for it so you lose nothing -
> > and i imagine that you should b
On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 04:08:21AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 06:34:38PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Well, no. People (well, at least one of them) think the only
> > constitutionally sound way of offering an alternative to be voted on
> I guess voting NO is not
On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 07:15:19PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 08:50:07PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > [stuff]
> [more stuff]
Thomas, why did you resend this spectacle of private mail to the lists?
It's *private* *mail*. Treat it as such. For the sanity of th
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Perhaps this is because Branden only pointed out the expiry
> after the ballot was issued?
I believe that is incorrect. Furthermore, the Secretary considered
Branden's point and ruled it incorrect before.
I am unsure what is the more scary precedent
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 11:31:13AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > I am of very mixed feelings about this announcement.
>
> No wonder. The possiblity that something might actually happen, and that
> we might not have months more of tedious flamewars abo
listen dickhead, if you're going to request that i not email you
privately then the onus is on you to not write inflammatory crap that
requires a response.
btw, it's interesting to see that a debian developer is threatening to
infringe my copyright by posting my private messages to a public forum
Robert Woodcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 07:15:19PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 08:50:07PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > [stuff]
> > [more stuff]
>
> Thomas, why did you resend this spectacle of private mail to the lists?
>
>
Robert Woodcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It's *private* *mail*. Treat it as such. For the sanity of the rest of us.
More to the point: if a Debian developer is sending me hateful and
abusive mail, I want the rest of the Project to know about it.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROT
On 13 Nov 2000, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Robert Woodcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 07:15:19PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > > On Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 08:50:07PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > > [stuff]
> > > [more stuff]
> >
> > Thomas, why did
On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 10:01:39AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > It's *private* *mail*. Treat it as such. For the sanity of the rest of us.
>
> More to the point: if a Debian developer is sending me hateful and
> abusive mail, I want the rest of the Project to know about it.
I'm not
John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ignoring is one thing, I respect your right to do it, but calling for
> public muzzling is out of line. He has as much right to be heard as
> yourself, so I think it only fair that if he goes, so do you.
That's fine; if you want Craig to continue to post
Christian Surchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > More to the point: if a Debian developer is sending me hateful and
> > abusive mail, I want the rest of the Project to know about it.
>
> I'm not interested in your flames. I consider *someone* is sending mail
> to you, a Debian developer is a p
* Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001113 11:11]:
> That's fine; if you want Craig to continue to post vituperative email,
> beyond all pale of human decency, feel free. But I will insist that
> it is inappropriate for Debian developers to send such mail in the
> course of Debian busines
No, the months of tedious flamewars were brought about by your
hypocritical, ill-advised, and divisive GR. The DPS is not completely
blameless in this issue, but "let ye who is without sin cast the first
stone" and brother that places you at the end of the line. It's amazing
how you shield the
John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No, the months of tedious flamewars were brought about by your
> hypocritical, ill-advised, and divisive GR. The DPS is not completely
> blameless in this issue, but "let ye who is without sin cast the first
> stone" and brother that places you at the end
On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 11:13:55AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> I'm not sure what you are saying. Are you saying that Craig is a
> person, and so we should not care if he says hateful things?
I don't think that personal contrasts should be discussed here, in
particular if they have no i
[please don't cc: me on replies]
On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 10:01:39AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Robert Woodcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > It's *private* *mail*. Treat it as such. For the sanity of the rest of us.
>
> More to the point: if a Debian developer is sending me hateful a
On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 10:01:39AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > It's *private* *mail*. Treat it as such. For the sanity of the rest of us.
>
> More to the point: if a Debian developer is sending me hateful and
> abusive mail, I want the rest of the Project to know about it.
Yeah, but
On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 04:08:21AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> There is also A.3.6.
> In cases of doubt the Project Secretary shall decide on matters of
> procedure (for example, whether particular amendments should be considered
> independent or not).
That's probably reasonable.
> >
On 13 Nov 2000, John Goerzen wrote:
> John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > No, the months of tedious flamewars were brought about by your
> > hypocritical, ill-advised, and divisive GR. The DPS is not completely
> > blameless in this issue, but "let ye who is without sin cast the first
>
On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 05:36:23PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > Then how can they possibly be voted on together?
On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 03:04:08AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Under A.2.3.
>
> 3. The person who calls for a vote states what they believe the
>wordings of th
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > He said the results have not been tabulated. You say "he has the
> > results of the vote". Well, are you calling him a liar?
>
> I refuse to fall for the bait of a troll.
You know, I'm one of your supporters. I like your resolution. I
think you
I want to say that while I've been a little critical of Darren's
absence recently, I have great respect for him, and I'm encouraged
that things are moving again. Nothing that I said was intended to
criticize his ability or willingness to do a difficult job, and I'm
glad that things are moving al
> Since we're already using a Condorcet-base scheme, it's probably best to
> keep doing that (ie, keeping the "foo DOMINATES bar"). From the latter
> URL, it seems that "Tideman" and "Schulze" are probably the most suitable
> (they're not vulnerable to most of the nasty strategies). Mike Ossipoff
Well, your e-mail was so illogical and senseless that I almost wonder
if it's worth my time reading it, but I'll reply anyway.
John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On what basis do you claim it's "extra-constitutional"?
>
> Simple, there is nothing within the constitution that allows amend
On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 09:06:50PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Perhaps this is because Branden only pointed out the expiry
> > after the ballot was issued?
>
> I believe that is incorrect.
It isn't. I posted my expiry analysis the day after Dar
On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 12:33:39PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> The DPS is not completely blameless in this issue, but "let ye who is
> without sin cast the first stone"
An interesting allusion from a Randroid.
--
G. Branden Robinson |
Debian GNU/Linux| Mob rule isn't
On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 11:52:13AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
[...]
Thanks for an informative post instead of one that just screams at me.
Definitely food for thought.
And yes, "strategic" voting is exactly why I objected so strongly to your
"gutting" amendment. I am frankly amazed that the sc
On 14 Nov 2000, John Goerzen wrote:
> Well, your e-mail was so illogical and senseless that I almost wonder
> if it's worth my time reading it, but I'll reply anyway.
Getting close to the last refuge of the incompetent?
> John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > On what basis do you claim
I figured you'd go with the $%&# flamer angle myself :) But hey, if it
trips your trigger...The Rand thing Is getting old, however...All in all,
I'd rate it a 7.5: needs work before it's Olympic caliber.
On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 12:33:39PM -0700, J
John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I figured you'd go with the $%&# flamer angle myself :) But hey, if it
> trips your trigger...The Rand thing Is getting old, however...All in all,
> I'd rate it a 7.5: needs work before it's Olympic caliber.
Oh, I think Rand doesn't deserve a C. Perhaps
On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 12:23:36AM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> The Rand thing Is getting old, however...
I entirely agree. How about using your real name?
--
G. Branden Robinson |Software engineering: that part of
Debian GNU/Linux|computer science which is too
John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Actually, the Constitutional Convention was supposed to amend the
> Articles, and they did: they replaced them lock stock and barrel. They
> did nothing to other documents: the Barbary papers were not repudiated: in
> fact, in 1795, the succeeding Emperor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > However, by the same token, I am EXTREMELY concerned and VERY unhappy
> > that YOUR own IRRRESPONSIBILITY and flagrant disregard of your duties,
> > responsibilities, and the Constitution have put u
If that is what it looks like, I must be giving off the wrong
impression. I did not oppose Branden when he initially advanced the
idea that it had expired. Also, I am waiting to re-propose it until
after we have decided with more clarity the Constitutional issues that
Branden's and/or Manoj's pr
76 matches
Mail list logo
