On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 04:33:04AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 01:01:47PM +0100, Peter Makholm wrote:
> > I support Branden's proposal but I don't support the removal of
> > non-free.
>
> Branden's proposal has the first clause read:
>
> Debian Will Remain 100% Fr
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 04:33:04AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 01:01:47PM +0100, Peter Makholm wrote:
> > I support Branden's proposal but I don't support the removal of
> > non-free.
>
> Branden's proposal has the first clause read:
>
> Debian Will Remain 100% Fr
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 12:22:03AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > What I have trouble understanding is why you might classify that sort of
> > approach as insincere. It's not as if we have some shortage of people
> > wanting to talk about things on our lists. Nor is it the case that
> > ther
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 03:42:22PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 01:58:25PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Why do you think that voting for "Remove non-free" means that we wouldn't
> > continue to produce a distribution? Why do you think that ballot would be
> > treated
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 12:15:18AM -0600, Graham Wilson wrote:
> But wait: doesn't Debian currently distribute non-free software? And
> don't we currently promise to remain "100% free software"? How do you
> square that?
Easily: the only thing that trumps the social contract is the social
contract
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 12:49:27AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> One interesting question that arises is whether it would make sense to
> eliminate some of the complexity of the SRP in the case of a two-valued
> ballot (ratify this? [Y/N]).
Note that we already had this happen in the instance o
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 12:59:23AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Does supporting non-free software have a moral value for *you*?
Yes, it does, and twice over at that.
First, while we have our own definition of free software, there's nothing
absolute about that. Reasonable people can disagree
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 01:11:58AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > How do you square Debian continuing to distribute non-free software with
> > our promise to remain "100% free", and the promise that "every work in
> > our distributions will satisfy [the DFSG]"?
> The same way we always have; by
Anthony Towns writes:
> What you're saying above is that ideology should be *more important* than
> pragmatism, since what goes in the social contract is definitively more
> important than stuff that doesn't:
No, I'm saying that it can be viewed as different things. This has
nothing to do with t
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 12:43:52AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> E) I say I'm willing to seriously consider breaking up my proposal if
>the Project Secretary can help me identify how many axes of
>orthogonality he perceives in my original RFD.
FWIW, in my opinion there are five distinct
> I beg to differ. After catching up on the list I see that a couple
> of people claim to have ranked option C below further discussion.
>
> Option C was proposed as "AMENDMENT BR3" to this mailing list[1].
>
> There *was* no discussion of it, really. It collected its seconds,
> and ther
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 04:18:46PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 08:46:54PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 04:18:19AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 11:04:03PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > > > The draft so
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 10:39:20PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 08:46:54PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 04:18:19AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 11:04:03PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > > > The draft so fa
On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 15:33:29 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 02:46:24AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 03:09:47 -0500, Branden Robinson
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> > Both Mr. DeRobertis and I interpreted the text quoted above as
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 00:22:03 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 04:00:28PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
>> If someone ranked "further discussion" above all other options, I'd
>> agree that that was probably an insincere vote.
> Why so? I'm not saying I disag
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 00:22:03 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I conclude from this that we have a system where people are
> perfectly comfortable with voicing no challenge or opposition to a
> proposal; they just rank it below "further discussion". Given that
> ample opportunity
On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 05:09:09 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 03:08:49AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> A.2.3 However, the final decision on the form of ballot(s) is the
>> Secretary's - see 7.1(1), 7.1(3) and A.3(4).
>>
>> A.3.4. In cases of doubt th
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 01:25:41PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 00:22:03 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 04:00:28PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> >> If someone ranked "further discussion" above all other options, I'd
> >> agree th
On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 16:06:48 +1000, Anthony Towns said:
> On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 10:39:56PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> > For reference, I wouldn't be. Either:
>> >Further, non-free and contrib shall be removed from the
>> >archive, and no longer supported by the Debian project.
>> >
On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 15:58:40 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Now, if this were part of the ballot; if I could chose
>>
>> a) remove clause 5, but do not remove non-free from the archive
>> b) remove clause 5, and clear the way to remove non-free as well
>>
>> then yes, we can
On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 15:33:29 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> In the recent "Disambiguation of 4.1.5" vote, for instance, while I
> haven't look at the tally sheet yet to see if anyone actually did, I
> would have to wonder if anyone who ranked "further discussion" above
> any of
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 10:29:00 -0600, Graham Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 12:43:52AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>> E) I say I'm willing to seriously consider breaking up my proposal
>>if
>> the Project Secretary can help me identify how many axes of
>> orthogona
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 03:43:41PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 10:29:00 -0600, Graham Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > 2. Expand our committment to freedom beyond software. (4)
>
> Huh? We don't ship any hardware or wetware; and the author of
> the sc has stated
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 04:18:46PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> It's not like they don't have other responsibilities. I think it's a
> little fantastic to try to form a picture in people's minds of the
> Debian archive administration team huddled over their terminals, their
> faces lit only by
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 03:43:41PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 10:29:00 -0600, Graham Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 12:43:52AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> >> E) I say I'm willing to seriously consider breaking up my proposal
> >>if
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 09:36:41AM +0100, Peter Makholm wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
> > What you're saying above is that ideology should be *more important* than
> > pragmatism, since what goes in the social contract is definitively more
> > important than stuff that doesn't:
> No, I'm saying t
On Nov 4, 2003, at 13:44, Anthony Towns wrote:
Just because supporting non-free software doesn't have any moral value
for you, doesn't mean that's the same for everyone.
That would, I assume, be the reason we're voting on it.
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 01:54:39PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> Of course, that leaves voters without any way to express the
> >> opinion "change the Social Contract to not mandate non-free, but
> >> punt on the question of its actual removal", which is also a valid
> >> viewpoint.
> > [
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 01:21:12PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Not necessarily. A person who ranks their preferences insincerely
> > might simply feel they're using the system the way it was designed
> > to be used.
> I challenge the use of the term insincerely here.
It's a technical
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 02:28:54PM -0600, Chad Walstrom wrote:
> Options A and C contained the red tape I wanted to avoid at all costs.
> I voted 3142, but in hindsight, I should not have given preference to A
> over C. I suspected that A would win, so perhaps I should have ranked C
> over A or av
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 12:49:27AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> One interesting question that arises is whether it would make sense to
> eliminate some of the complexity of the SRP in the case of a two-valued
> ballot (ratify this? [Y/N]).
Note that we already had this happen in the instance o
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 12:59:23AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Does supporting non-free software have a moral value for *you*?
Yes, it does, and twice over at that.
First, while we have our own definition of free software, there's nothing
absolute about that. Reasonable people can disagree
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 01:11:58AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > How do you square Debian continuing to distribute non-free software with
> > our promise to remain "100% free", and the promise that "every work in
> > our distributions will satisfy [the DFSG]"?
> The same way we always have; by
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What you're saying above is that ideology should be *more important* than
> pragmatism, since what goes in the social contract is definitively more
> important than stuff that doesn't:
No, I'm saying that it can be viewed as different things. This has
n
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 12:43:52AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> E) I say I'm willing to seriously consider breaking up my proposal if
>the Project Secretary can help me identify how many axes of
>orthogonality he perceives in my original RFD.
FWIW, in my opinion there are five distinct
> I beg to differ. After catching up on the list I see that a couple
> of people claim to have ranked option C below further discussion.
>
> Option C was proposed as "AMENDMENT BR3" to this mailing list[1].
>
> There *was* no discussion of it, really. It collected its seconds,
> and ther
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 04:18:46PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 08:46:54PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 04:18:19AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 11:04:03PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > > > The draft so
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 10:39:20PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 08:46:54PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 04:18:19AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 11:04:03PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > > > The draft so fa
On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 15:33:29 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 02:46:24AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 03:09:47 -0500, Branden Robinson
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> > Both Mr. DeRobertis and I interpreted the text quoted above as
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 00:22:03 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 04:00:28PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
>> If someone ranked "further discussion" above all other options, I'd
>> agree that that was probably an insincere vote.
> Why so? I'm not saying I disag
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 00:22:03 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I conclude from this that we have a system where people are
> perfectly comfortable with voicing no challenge or opposition to a
> proposal; they just rank it below "further discussion". Given that
> ample opportunity
On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 05:09:09 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 03:08:49AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> A.2.3 However, the final decision on the form of ballot(s) is the
>> Secretary's - see 7.1(1), 7.1(3) and A.3(4).
>>
>> A.3.4. In cases of doubt th
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 01:25:41PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 00:22:03 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 04:00:28PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> >> If someone ranked "further discussion" above all other options, I'd
> >> agree th
On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 16:06:48 +1000, Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 10:39:56PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> > For reference, I wouldn't be. Either:
>> >Further, non-free and contrib shall be removed from the
>> >archive, and no longer supported by the D
On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 15:58:40 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Now, if this were part of the ballot; if I could chose
>>
>> a) remove clause 5, but do not remove non-free from the archive
>> b) remove clause 5, and clear the way to remove non-free as well
>>
>> then yes, we can
On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 15:33:29 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> In the recent "Disambiguation of 4.1.5" vote, for instance, while I
> haven't look at the tally sheet yet to see if anyone actually did, I
> would have to wonder if anyone who ranked "further discussion" above
> any of
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 10:29:00 -0600, Graham Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 12:43:52AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>> E) I say I'm willing to seriously consider breaking up my proposal
>>if
>> the Project Secretary can help me identify how many axes of
>> orthogona
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 03:43:41PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 10:29:00 -0600, Graham Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > 2. Expand our committment to freedom beyond software. (4)
>
> Huh? We don't ship any hardware or wetware; and the author of
> the sc has stated
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 04:18:46PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> It's not like they don't have other responsibilities. I think it's a
> little fantastic to try to form a picture in people's minds of the
> Debian archive administration team huddled over their terminals, their
> faces lit only by
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 03:43:41PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 10:29:00 -0600, Graham Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 12:43:52AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> >> E) I say I'm willing to seriously consider breaking up my proposal
> >>if
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 09:36:41AM +0100, Peter Makholm wrote:
> Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > What you're saying above is that ideology should be *more important* than
> > pragmatism, since what goes in the social contract is definitively more
> > important than stuff that doesn't:
On Nov 4, 2003, at 13:44, Anthony Towns wrote:
Just because supporting non-free software doesn't have any moral value
for you, doesn't mean that's the same for everyone.
That would, I assume, be the reason we're voting on it.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubs
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 01:54:39PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> Of course, that leaves voters without any way to express the
> >> opinion "change the Social Contract to not mandate non-free, but
> >> punt on the question of its actual removal", which is also a valid
> >> viewpoint.
> > [
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 01:21:12PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Not necessarily. A person who ranks their preferences insincerely
> > might simply feel they're using the system the way it was designed
> > to be used.
> I challenge the use of the term insincerely here.
It's a technical
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 02:28:54PM -0600, Chad Walstrom wrote:
> Options A and C contained the red tape I wanted to avoid at all costs.
> I voted 3142, but in hindsight, I should not have given preference to A
> over C. I suspected that A would win, so perhaps I should have ranked C
> over A or av
55 matches
Mail list logo
