I second Craig's proposal.
- Ted
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 09:45:18AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 08:41:35PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > The Debian Project,
> >
> > affirming its committment to principles of freeness fo
On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 07:26:46PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 12:51:23AM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> > I do not understand why this is an alternative to many existing
> > proposals and would be on the same ballot.
>
> Does it fail to address the release issues created in t
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I solicit comments about the above from -vote in general, but I
> would especially like to hear reactions from the proponent of each
> proposal.
Given that most of the GR proposals are written to work around our
RM's conscience, it would be helpful to
I wonder if we have (or want) a resolution that would explicitly
exclude sarge from a stronger interpretation of the social contract
than it was on April 1st?
That would not have to change a foundation document again and hence
don't require a 3:1 majority. It would also allow the Release Manager
On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 04:13:58PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> "Francesco P. Lovergine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Firmware is a component of hardware. Also processors uses microcode to
> > work. So, do we are wrong in calling that 'hardware'?
>
> Real firmware is as you say. Bu
> I'm just saying that by a practical point of view who thinks so is
> pretending that hardware is free too. Your point of view is that firmware
> is software. Ok, that's also true for all the hardware you are using. I'm
> not so sure that any GPL program can be used along with a program
> (hardwar
On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 10:56:20AM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> I'm just saying that by a practical point of view who thinks so is
> pretending that hardware is free too. Your point of view is that
> firmware is software. Ok, that's also true for all the hardware
> you are using.
This se
I have some questions:
1) If none of the proposed courses of actions meets the 3:1 majority
requirement, it is the same as "FURTHER DISCUSSION", right?
Constitution A.6.3[1] seems to imply "yes".
1a) If so, what do we do? Is Anthony Towns's interpretation of the
Social Contract and its bindingne
Scripsit Duncan Findlay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 09:07:13PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > [###] Choice A: Postpone changes until September 2004 [needs 3:1]
> > [###] Choice B: Postpone changes until Sarge releases [needs 3:1]
> > [###] Choice C: Add apology to Social Con
Scripsit Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I solicit comments about the above from -vote in general, but I
> > would especially like to hear reactions from the proponent of each
> > proposal.
> Given that most of the GR proposals are written to w
On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 11:29:55AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> 1) If none of the proposed courses of actions meets the 3:1 majority
> requirement, it is the same as "FURTHER DISCUSSION", right?
Right.
> 1a) If so, what do we do? Is Anthony Towns's interpretation of the
> Social Contract and
Branden Robinson wrote:
> I have some questions:
>
> 1) If none of the proposed courses of actions meets the 3:1 majority
> requirement, it is the same as "FURTHER DISCUSSION", right?
I believe so.
> 1a) If so, what do we do? Is Anthony Towns's interpretation of the
> Social Contract and its bi
Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 2a) Constitution A.6.8[1] strongly implies that the answer to 2) is
> "yes". Is it wise to have our SRP bind us to only one of several
> possible outcomes?
I think it would be wholly infeasible to try to construct a ballot
that would allow simultan
On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 12:16:25AM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote:
Hi,
> Here is the list of rationale raised for this proposal:
> * People can make mistake and should be allowed to correct it.
> * This deserves to be an option on the ballet.
> * Full impact assessment by Anthony Towns [3] revealed
Hi,
One thing we all can agree is that there have been long and many
arguments over what SC really means and there are few camps out there
with totally different views.
On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 08:05:38PM +0200, Guido Trotter wrote:
> On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 12:16:25AM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote:
>
On Mon, 3 May 2004 23:42:20 +0200, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> * Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040503 19:55]:
>> On Mon, 3 May 2004 17:28:43 +0100, Ian Jackson
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> >I would ask all proposers and sponsors of resolutions to avoid
>> >callin
Pat *
The cablefilterz will allow you to receive
all the channels that you order with your remote control,`
payperviews,aXXXmovies,sport events,special-events{
http://www.9005hosting.com/cable/
throng ,epithet .
"Francesco P. Lovergine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm just saying that by a practical point of view who thinks so is
> pretending that hardware is free too.
No, I'm not pretending that hardware is free. It may well not be,
which is why we don't distribute it.
> Your point of view is that
Buy your drug of choice, NO prescription required
Today's special: Free overnight Fedex delivery
Vicodin.$2.59/dose
Hydrocodone$2.18/dose
Xanax...$2.54/dose
Valium..$2.64/dose
Phentermine..$0.84/dose
Stock is limit
On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 05:57:34PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> (Rumor has it that we'll have a further proposal that explicitly
> resolves to do nothing and let Sarge be delayed, but if so, it will
> be easy to make that clear in the short description).
Don't we already have that in the form o
I wonder if we have (or want) a resolution that would explicitly
exclude sarge from a stronger interpretation of the social contract
than it was on April 1st?
That would not have to change a foundation document again and hence
don't require a 3:1 majority. It would also allow the Release Manager
On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 04:13:58PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> "Francesco P. Lovergine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Firmware is a component of hardware. Also processors uses microcode to
> > work. So, do we are wrong in calling that 'hardware'?
>
> Real firmware is as you say. Bu
Scripsit Duncan Findlay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 09:07:13PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > [###] Choice A: Postpone changes until September 2004 [needs 3:1]
> > [###] Choice B: Postpone changes until Sarge releases [needs 3:1]
> > [###] Choice C: Add apology to Social Con
Scripsit Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I solicit comments about the above from -vote in general, but I
> > would especially like to hear reactions from the proponent of each
> > proposal.
> Given that most of the GR proposals are written to w
On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 11:29:55AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> 1) If none of the proposed courses of actions meets the 3:1 majority
> requirement, it is the same as "FURTHER DISCUSSION", right?
Right.
> 1a) If so, what do we do? Is Anthony Towns's interpretation of the
> Social Contract and
Branden Robinson wrote:
> I have some questions:
>
> 1) If none of the proposed courses of actions meets the 3:1 majority
> requirement, it is the same as "FURTHER DISCUSSION", right?
I believe so.
> 1a) If so, what do we do? Is Anthony Towns's interpretation of the
> Social Contract and its bi
Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 2a) Constitution A.6.8[1] strongly implies that the answer to 2) is
> "yes". Is it wise to have our SRP bind us to only one of several
> possible outcomes?
I think it would be wholly infeasible to try to construct a ballot
that would allow simultan
On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 12:16:25AM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote:
Hi,
> Here is the list of rationale raised for this proposal:
> * People can make mistake and should be allowed to correct it.
> * This deserves to be an option on the ballet.
> * Full impact assessment by Anthony Towns [3] revealed
Hi,
One thing we all can agree is that there have been long and many
arguments over what SC really means and there are few camps out there
with totally different views.
On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 08:05:38PM +0200, Guido Trotter wrote:
> On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 12:16:25AM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote:
>
On Mon, 3 May 2004 23:42:20 +0200, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> * Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040503 19:55]:
>> On Mon, 3 May 2004 17:28:43 +0100, Ian Jackson
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> >I would ask all proposers and sponsors of resolutions to avoid
>> >callin
Pat *
The cablefilterz will allow you to receive
all the channels that you order with your remote control,`
payperviews,aXXXmovies,sport events,special-events{
http://www.9005hosting.com/cable/
throng ,epithet .
"Francesco P. Lovergine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm just saying that by a practical point of view who thinks so is
> pretending that hardware is free too.
No, I'm not pretending that hardware is free. It may well not be,
which is why we don't distribute it.
> Your point of view is that
Buy your drug of choice, NO prescription required
Today's special: Free overnight Fedex delivery
Vicodin.$2.59/dose
Hydrocodone$2.18/dose
Xanax...$2.54/dose
Valium..$2.64/dose
Phentermine..$0.84/dose
Stock is limit
On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 05:57:34PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> (Rumor has it that we'll have a further proposal that explicitly
> resolves to do nothing and let Sarge be delayed, but if so, it will
> be easy to make that clear in the short description).
Don't we already have that in the form o
34 matches
Mail list logo
