On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 12:19:22PM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> procedure, remove you from your post is a hallmark of democracy.
>> In the case of the Project secretary, the procedure is indirect (by
>> electing a project leader who will not reappoint y
On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 08:21:17AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 05:34:53PM -0600, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
>> According to the constitution (5.2. Appointment), project
>> leader elections should begin "nine weeks before the leadership
>> post becomes vacant,
* Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060207 00:19]:
> so make your reference card and include a link to the FSF's site for the
> full documentation. one link hardly even qualifies as inconvenient.
Huh? I thought we are speaking about GFDL, where invariant sections
have to be "Preserve all the Inv
Date: 07 Feb 2006
Company: Pingchuan Pharmaceut
Symbol: P G C N
Current Price: $1.17
Short Term Target: $2
6month Target: $7
Explosive pick for our members.
This is your chance to get in while it is still low.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Tr
[Kalle Kivimaa]
> > Actually, it is a direct procedure. The developers may, by way of a
> > GR, override any decision of the DPL, including an appointment.
[Lionel Elie Mamane]
> A vote run by the secretary obviously. Oh, how delicious.
If you've got something to say, say it.
This _implicatio
Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Kalle Kivimaa]
>> > Actually, it is a direct procedure. The developers may, by way of a
>> > GR, override any decision of the DPL, including an appointment.
>
> [Lionel Elie Mamane]
>> A vote run by the secretary obviously. Oh, how delicious.
>
> If
On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 04:50:40AM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> [Kalle Kivimaa]
>>> Actually, it is a direct procedure. The developers may, by way of
>>> a GR, override any decision of the DPL, including an appointment.
> [Lionel Elie Mamane]
>> A vote run by the secretary obviously. Oh, h
On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 04:50:40AM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> This _implication_ that the Secretary wouldn't properly run a vote
> concerning his own appointment is tiresome. If that's what you meant,
> please say it directly. If not, what _did_ you mean?
Personally, I'd think we're much mo
On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 10:33:23AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 03:17:03PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > no, code in a program could never be a secondary section. it is
> > > inherently the "primary topic" of the
On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 09:49:51AM -0500, Zephaniah E. Hull wrote:
> Alright, I'm going to give another example here, hopefully this one will
> get through to you.
>
> Now, remember, we have _already had_ the GR that states that as far as
> the DFSG goes we don't give a damn if it's documentation
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 05:16:24PM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
>
> Our discussion became too complicated and I am not sure on what we
> agree and on what we disagree. I will try to explain my current
> opinion in a separate message and if we have some disagreement we can
> continue from there.
On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 10:40:38AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Yavor Doganov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > This is not a proper example. Non-modifiability of secondary.c may
> > obstruct further improvements of the program. This is not the case
> > with the invariant sections, which
On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 08:47:54AM -0500, Zephaniah E. Hull wrote:
>
> I am unconvinced that the DFSG means 'all modifications', I think that
> it really does mean all reasonable modifications.
'All reasonable modifications' is a reasonable interpretation provided
we agree what 'reasonable' means
On Tue, 2006-02-07 at 09:06, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> > Sometimes an enhancement requires removing invariant sections. For
> > example, if you want to turn the manual into a reference card.
>
> You can attach the invariant sections to the reference card and the
> conditions of GFDL will be satisfi
On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 09:21:58AM -0800, Mike Bird wrote:
>
> It seems to me that there an awful lot of potential *practical*
> problems with invariant sections in documents.
>
> They may contain outdated, narrow, or even dangerous advice or
> code examples. For example: code fragments written
Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 10:40:38AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Yavor Doganov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > This is not a proper example. Non-modifiability of secondary.c may
>> > obstruct further improvements of the program. This is not
On Tue, 2006-02-07 at 09:42, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 09:21:58AM -0800, Mike Bird wrote:
> >
> > It seems to me that there an awful lot of potential *practical*
> > problems with invariant sections in documents.
> >
> > They may contain outdated, narrow, or even dangerous a
On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 09:58:55AM -0800, Mike Bird wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-02-07 at 09:42, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
>
> I think I could accidently or deliberately slip something nasty
> into a GFDL invariant section. For example, a manual for some
> application could contain a polemic on the security
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 10:40:38AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Yavor Doganov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > This is not a proper example. Non-modifiability of secondary.c may
>> > obstruct further improvements of the program. This is not
Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 10:40:38AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Yavor Doganov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > This is not a proper example. Non-modifiability of secondary.c may
>> > obstruct further improvements of the program. This is no
Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Suppose we have a license X that makes use of this rule of DFSG. In
> particular the X license gives us only the following permissions with
> respect to the source code:
>1. Permits to distribute and build unmodified copies of the source
> o
On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 07:42:49PM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 09:21:58AM -0800, Mike Bird wrote:
> >
> > It seems to me that there an awful lot of potential *practical*
> > problems with invariant sections in documents.
> >
> > They may contain outdated, narrow, or eve
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 12:37:37AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 07:42:49PM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 09:21:58AM -0800, Mike Bird wrote:
> > >
> > > It seems to me that there an awful lot of potential *practical*
> > > problems with invarian
On 7 Feb 2006, Lionel Elie Mamane spake thusly:
> On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 04:50:40AM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
>> This _implication_ that the Secretary wouldn't properly run a vote
>> concerning his own appointment is tiresome. If that's what you
>> meant, please say it directly.
>
> It is
24 matches
Mail list logo
