Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract

2003-11-10 Thread MJ Ray
On 2003-11-09 03:56:10 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alternatively, maybe people could second the draft at the bottom of Anthony Towns' message: Why second something that was not proposed? It seems to be a hypothetical "if I were..." to give Branden something to think about. (For off-line

Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract

2003-11-10 Thread Manoj Srivastava
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 09:50:14 +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On 2003-11-09 03:56:10 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> Alternatively, maybe people could second the draft at the bottom of >> Anthony Towns' message: > Why second something that was not proposed? It seems to be a > hypothet

Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract

2003-11-10 Thread Manoj Srivastava
On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 19:37:07 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > It seems that relatively few people get Debian via CD these days, > and installation directly from the mirror network is far more > common, where contrib and non-free enjoy apparent parity with main. A point

Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract

2003-11-10 Thread Manoj Srivastava
On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 18:56:15 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 02:48:32PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 01:54:39PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > [...] >> > > [ 1 ] Change social contract, remove non-free [ 1 ] Change >> > > so

Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract

2003-11-10 Thread MJ Ray
On 2003-11-09 03:56:10 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alternatively, maybe people could second the draft at the bottom of Anthony Towns' message: Why second something that was not proposed? It seems to be a hypothetical "if I were..." to give Branden something to think about. (For off-line reade

Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract

2003-11-10 Thread Manoj Srivastava
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 09:50:14 +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On 2003-11-09 03:56:10 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> Alternatively, maybe people could second the draft at the bottom of >> Anthony Towns' message: > Why second something that was not proposed? It seems to be a > hypothet

Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract

2003-11-10 Thread Manoj Srivastava
On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 19:37:07 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > It seems that relatively few people get Debian via CD these days, > and installation directly from the mirror network is far more > common, where contrib and non-free enjoy apparent parity with main. A point

Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract

2003-11-10 Thread Manoj Srivastava
On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 18:56:15 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 02:48:32PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 01:54:39PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > [...] >> > > [ 1 ] Change social contract, remove non-free [ 1 ] Change >> > > so