On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 09:09:33PM -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> Debian Project Secretary ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> > New text:
> >
> > 5. Works that do not meet our free software standards
> [...]
> > We encourage CD
> > manufacturers to read the licenses of the packages in these areas and
On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 10:16:59AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 10:57:17PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > On Fri, 26 Mar 2004, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > Of course there are interactions between, but there are several
> > > discrete proposals in each of the two vers
On Fri, Apr 02, 2004 at 12:34:56AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> As far as I understand the motivation for the editorial change
> are twofold:
>
> 1) remove some ambiguities on the wording,
> 2) make the text look nicer from a literary point of vue.
>
> However, the SC is a document which has q
On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 09:07:27PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> Well, IMHO the old version is much nicer. The social contract _should_
> in my opinion have some nice, not too technical start. A promise is a
> very good start, and I'd like to keep that there.
Forward references should be avoided w
On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 07:12:15PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> I'd like to agree with the people who say that the proposed editorial
> corrections destroy the style of the social contract. The proposed
> new social contract has similar effect to the current one. I'm not
> able to determine if the
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If you only like specific parts of a proposal, and there are enough
> people who share you viewpoint for it to matter (6 people to second
> your proposal) then you just need to propose an amendment
> incorporating the parts you like and removing the part
[Yet again, I'm subscribed to -vote. Do *NOT* Cc: me.[1]]
On Thu, 01 Apr 2004, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> I don't have the arrogance to just declare "this is the best way"
> without hearing discussion, which is what I was trying to invite.
>
> Sadly, Debian seems to head for the meta-discussion
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I gathered that you were interested in seeing the vote split up into
> multiple votes on every single section because you weren't happy with
> the amendment in total rather than inviting a discussion on the
> perceived issue(s) with different section(s)
Dear fellow developers,
As far as I understand the motivation for the editorial change
are twofold:
1) remove some ambiguities on the wording,
2) make the text look nicer from a literary point of vue.
However, the SC is a document which has quite an historical and
sentimental value for most of
Dear fellow developers,
As far as I understand the motivation for the editorial change
are twofold:
1) remove some ambiguities on the wording,
2) make the text look nicer from a literary point of vue.
However, the SC is a document which has quite an historical and
sentimental value for most of
On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 09:09:33PM -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> Debian Project Secretary ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> > New text:
> >
> > 5. Works that do not meet our free software standards
> [...]
> > We encourage CD
> > manufacturers to read the licenses of the packages in these areas and
On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 10:16:59AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 10:57:17PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > On Fri, 26 Mar 2004, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > Of course there are interactions between, but there are several
> > > discrete proposals in each of the two vers
On Fri, Apr 02, 2004 at 12:34:56AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> As far as I understand the motivation for the editorial change
> are twofold:
>
> 1) remove some ambiguities on the wording,
> 2) make the text look nicer from a literary point of vue.
>
> However, the SC is a document which has q
On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 09:07:27PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> Well, IMHO the old version is much nicer. The social contract _should_
> in my opinion have some nice, not too technical start. A promise is a
> very good start, and I'd like to keep that there.
Forward references should be avoided w
On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 07:12:15PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> I'd like to agree with the people who say that the proposed editorial
> corrections destroy the style of the social contract. The proposed
> new social contract has similar effect to the current one. I'm not
> able to determine if the
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If you only like specific parts of a proposal, and there are enough
> people who share you viewpoint for it to matter (6 people to second
> your proposal) then you just need to propose an amendment
> incorporating the parts you like and removing the part
[Yet again, I'm subscribed to -vote. Do *NOT* Cc: me.[1]]
On Thu, 01 Apr 2004, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> I don't have the arrogance to just declare "this is the best way"
> without hearing discussion, which is what I was trying to invite.
>
> Sadly, Debian seems to head for the meta-discussion
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I gathered that you were interested in seeing the vote split up into
> multiple votes on every single section because you weren't happy with
> the amendment in total rather than inviting a discussion on the
> perceived issue(s) with different section(s)
18 matches
Mail list logo
