On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 03:00:08PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> That you're sincerely disappointed in the outcome of the last GR
> doesn't indicate a flaw in the system though -- pretty much every time
> we have two options on the ballot, *someone* is going to be
> disappointed.
You're associatin
Anthony Towns writes:
>> >> It's a distinction
>> >> I'm not surprised that not everybody see but it is important to me.
>> > Mmm. You're very special.
>> No, I'm not.
>
> Mmm. I thought you just said you saw something that other people didn't?
> Surely that makes you special?
I said that it do
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 09:17:18AM +0100, Peter Makholm wrote:
> >> It might be a cultural issue but it is, for me, perfectly
> >> sane to say:
> >> 1. This is what I believe.
> > "That Debian should be 100% free" ?
Is that what you believe or not? It's what the proposed social
contract says. I
What prize
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 04:24:20PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 08:53:40PM -0800, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> > The archive admins still need to answer to the project. If they
> > weren't barred from removing non-free right away (which may or may not
> > be case with the propo
On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 04:25:28PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> [Please direct followups to debian-vote.]
>
> Now that the vote over the meaning of clause 4.1.5 of the Debian
> Constitution is drawing to a close, the time is ripe to clear the last
> bit of pending business from the discussions
[digression; nothing about voting or the current GR here, just a
question about the real reasons that non-free is languishing today.]
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 05:23:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Second, our users still aren't able to do everything they might like
> to with free software; they
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 07:46:27PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> To distinguish between modification of the social contract, and
> removal of non-free; the latter vote should immediately follow the
> former (once we know what the ballot will look like for the first, we
> can write the second). Th
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 06:22:40PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 05:23:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Second, our users still aren't able to do everything they might like
> > to with free software; they can't play Flash games, they can't look
> > at Quicktime movies,
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 03:00:08PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> That you're sincerely disappointed in the outcome of the last GR
> doesn't indicate a flaw in the system though -- pretty much every time
> we have two options on the ballot, *someone* is going to be
> disappointed.
You're associatin
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >> It's a distinction
>> >> I'm not surprised that not everybody see but it is important to me.
>> > Mmm. You're very special.
>> No, I'm not.
>
> Mmm. I thought you just said you saw something that other people didn't?
> Surely that makes you special?
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 09:17:18AM +0100, Peter Makholm wrote:
> >> It might be a cultural issue but it is, for me, perfectly
> >> sane to say:
> >> 1. This is what I believe.
> > "That Debian should be 100% free" ?
Is that what you believe or not? It's what the proposed social
contract says. I
What prize
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 04:24:20PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 08:53:40PM -0800, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> > The archive admins still need to answer to the project. If they
> > weren't barred from removing non-free right away (which may or may not
> > be case with the propo
On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 04:25:28PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> [Please direct followups to debian-vote.]
>
> Now that the vote over the meaning of clause 4.1.5 of the Debian
> Constitution is drawing to a close, the time is ripe to clear the last
> bit of pending business from the discussions
[digression; nothing about voting or the current GR here, just a
question about the real reasons that non-free is languishing today.]
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 05:23:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Second, our users still aren't able to do everything they might like
> to with free software; they
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 06:22:40PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 05:23:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Second, our users still aren't able to do everything they might like
> > to with free software; they can't play Flash games, they can't look
> > at Quicktime movies,
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 07:46:27PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> To distinguish between modification of the social contract, and
> removal of non-free; the latter vote should immediately follow the
> former (once we know what the ballot will look like for the first, we
> can write the second). Th
18 matches
Mail list logo