Re: Summary: Proposal - Rescind GR 2004-003
Hi, OK. As I see it, there was a amendment posted From: Osamu Aoki [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 17:30:56 -0500 (CDT) with the final version being in: From: Osamu Aoki [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 02:41:54 -0500 (CDT) It has been explicitly seconded by: From: Xavier Roche [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 03:10:28 -0500 (CDT) From: Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 13:54:54 -0500 (CDT) From: Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 01:24:20 -0500 (CDT) From: Davide G. M. Salvetti [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 03:40:18 -0500 (CDT) And implicitly by: From: Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Sat, 8 May 2004 20:04:58 -0500 (CDT) I see that this amendment should be accepted, and I shall so modify the web page. manoj -- The last thing one knows in constructing a work is what to put first. Blaise Pascal Debian Project Secretary [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://vote.debian.org/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Summary: Proposal - Rescind GR 2004-003
Hi, Sorry to follow up on myself, but I also felt that the changes made in this reformulation were mostly cosmetic, and would not require a resetting of the discussion period; and there have been no objections in the 72 hours since the last second was received. manoj -- Don't smoke the next cigarette. Repeat. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Summary: Proposal - Rescind GR 2004-003
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 12:24:34PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Hi, Sorry to follow up on myself, but I also felt that the changes made in this reformulation were mostly cosmetic, and would not require a resetting of the discussion period; and there have been no objections in the 72 hours since the last second was received. Agreed and thanks. :) Osamu signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Summary: Proposal - Rescind GR 2004-003
Hi, OK. As I see it, there was a amendment posted From: Osamu Aoki [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 17:30:56 -0500 (CDT) with the final version being in: From: Osamu Aoki [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 02:41:54 -0500 (CDT) It has been explicitly seconded by: From: Xavier Roche [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 03:10:28 -0500 (CDT) From: Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 13:54:54 -0500 (CDT) From: Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 01:24:20 -0500 (CDT) From: Davide G. M. Salvetti [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 03:40:18 -0500 (CDT) And implicitly by: From: Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Sat, 8 May 2004 20:04:58 -0500 (CDT) I see that this amendment should be accepted, and I shall so modify the web page. manoj -- The last thing one knows in constructing a work is what to put first. Blaise Pascal Debian Project Secretary [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://vote.debian.org/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Summary: Proposal - Rescind GR 2004-003
On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 09:44:03AM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote: Thus this web page should be more like: Proposal D: Rescinds the previous GR, reverting to the version 1.0 of the social contract. This amendment deletes everything but clause 1 of proposal A. The actual text of the GR is: The Debian Project, hereby resolves: 1. that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within the General Resolution Editorial Amendments To The Social Contract (2004 vote 003) be immediately rescinded. This makes it clear which previous proposal we are talking about on the web page and gurantees exact resolution contents. Is this something everyone agree? Sure. -- EARTH smog | bricks AIR -- mud -- FIRE soda water | tequila WATER -- with thanks to fortune signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Summary: Proposal - Rescind GR 2004-003
OA == Osamu Aoki [2004-5-9] [...] OA Thus this web page should be more like: OA OA Proposal D: Rescinds the previous GR, reverting to the version 1.0 of the OA social contract. OA This amendment deletes everything but clause 1 of OA proposal A. OA The actual text of the GR is: OA The Debian Project, OA hereby resolves: OA 1. that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within OA the General Resolution Editorial Amendments To The Social OA Contract (2004 vote 003) be immediately rescinded. OA OA This makes it clear which previous proposal we are talking about on OA the web page and gurantees exact resolution contents. Is this OA something everyone agree? Fine with me. OA PS: I send original summary to everyone seconded prior to posting it OA to avoid this kind of confusion. No complaint nor suggestion was OA there. At this moment, you shouldn't expect a response from me on this topic in less than some days, it's not my top priority. When I got a chance to reply to your summary, you already posted it here (which is fine, I'm not asking for anybody to wait until I'm ready to reply). -- Salve, | GNU PG (GPG) Key ID: 9396865D Davide | http://www.linux.it/~salve/ pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Summary: Proposal - Rescind GR 2004-003
OA == Osamu Aoki [2004-5-9] OA On Sat, May 08, 2004 at 10:14:38AM +0200, Davide G. M. Salvetti wrote: [...] I more or less agree with some (actually not so many, by far not all) of the rationales listed by Osamu. OA Please point out if you find factual mistakes. No, I'm not aware of factual mistakes, if I understand correctly the meaning of factual mistakes. I simply don't agree with a significant number of the rationales, but I don't think I have to. I guess this is no problem at all; it isn't a problem for me, at least. OA Hmm I had no intention to change Craig's original. What he wrote OA was an incomplete sentence referencing Steve's proposal. These words OA slipped in from Steve's when I tried to make a full proposal out of OA them. I think your interpretation of deletes everything but clause 1 OA of this proposal makes sense too. I merely thought Craig was killing OA clause 2. OA I will second it either way. (But I do not want to have 2 ways.) Ok, I see you stripped it off, I'm happy with it. -- Salve, | GNU PG (GPG) Key ID: 9396865D Davide | http://www.linux.it/~salve/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Summary: Proposal - Rescind GR 2004-003
Thanks, but On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 08:54:55PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: Quoting Xavier Roche: Yes, seconded. Seconded as well (if really needed). With all respect, since we need to get single version agreed, can you second the shorter version I posted after comments from Davide G. M. Salvetti. Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] With this one, I think we all can agree. I just hate to see duplicate proposal with the same contents. Osamu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Summary: Proposal - Rescind GR 2004-003
On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 01:06:00AM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote: * Can Craig and people who seconded original proposal [2] to second this as the formal rationale for Craig's proposal [1]? Yes, seconded. Craig Sanders proposed the following resolution [1] (reformatted): The Debian Project, affirming its commitment to principles of freeness for all works it distributes, but recognizing that changing the Social Contract today would have grave consequences for the upcoming stable release, a fact which does not serve our goals or the interests of our users, hereby resolves: that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within the General Resolution Editorial Amendments To The Social Contract (2004 vote 003) be immediately rescinded. pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Summary: Proposal - Rescind GR 2004-003
Quoting Xavier Roche: On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 01:06:00AM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote: * Can Craig and people who seconded original proposal [2] to second this as the formal rationale for Craig's proposal [1]? Yes, seconded. Seconded as well (if really needed). Craig Sanders proposed the following resolution [1] (reformatted): The Debian Project, affirming its commitment to principles of freeness for all works it distributes, but recognizing that changing the Social Contract today would have grave consequences for the upcoming stable release, a fact which does not serve our goals or the interests of our users, hereby resolves: that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within the General Resolution Editorial Amendments To The Social Contract (2004 vote 003) be immediately rescinded. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog -+- http://www.ouaza.com Formation Linux et logiciel libre : http://www.logidee.com Earn money with free software: http://www.geniustrader.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Summary: Proposal - Rescind GR 2004-003
Thanks, but On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 08:54:55PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: Quoting Xavier Roche: Yes, seconded. Seconded as well (if really needed). With all respect, since we need to get single version agreed, can you second the shorter version I posted after comments from Davide G. M. Salvetti. Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] With this one, I think we all can agree. I just hate to see duplicate proposal with the same contents. Osamu
Re: Summary: Proposal - Rescind GR 2004-003
Hi, On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 11:04:41AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote: i originally meant delete everything but clause 1, but it really doesn't matter. the opening paragraph is just filler fluff and it doesn't bother me whether it is there or not. i.e. i'm happy with the amendment either way. the important thing is that the proposed action is clear and unambigous - rescind GR 2004-003. Agreed. I guess Manoj needs the final form so he does no extra action: I think current status of Proposal-D is funny: (at vote.debian.org) Here is one: Proposal D: Rescinds the previous GR, reverting to the version 1.0 of the social contract. The actual text of the GR is: This amendment deletes everything but clause 1 of this proposal, so that the entire proposal now reads: 1. that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within the General Resolution Editorial Amendments To The Social Contract (2004 vote 003) be immediately rescinded. Thus this web page should be more like: Proposal D: Rescinds the previous GR, reverting to the version 1.0 of the social contract. This amendment deletes everything but clause 1 of proposal A. The actual text of the GR is: The Debian Project, hereby resolves: 1. that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within the General Resolution Editorial Amendments To The Social Contract (2004 vote 003) be immediately rescinded. This makes it clear which previous proposal we are talking about on the web page and gurantees exact resolution contents. Is this something everyone agree? Again, editorial changes are tough one ... :) Osamu PS: I send original summary to everyone seconded prior to posting it to avoid this kind of confusion. No complaint nor suggestion was there. Due to the time constrain, this updated one is posted without prior consultation. I merely performed request by Marco d'Itri while supplimenting with rationale summary since Craig's original did not have it. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Summary: Proposal - Rescind GR 2004-003
On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 09:44:03AM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote: The Debian Project, hereby resolves: 1. that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within the General Resolution Editorial Amendments To The Social Contract (2004 vote 003) be immediately rescinded. Yes, this is much clearer. Seconded. pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Summary: Proposal - Rescind GR 2004-003
Hi, On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 11:04:41AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote: i originally meant delete everything but clause 1, but it really doesn't matter. the opening paragraph is just filler fluff and it doesn't bother me whether it is there or not. i.e. i'm happy with the amendment either way. the important thing is that the proposed action is clear and unambigous - rescind GR 2004-003. Agreed. I guess Manoj needs the final form so he does no extra action: I think current status of Proposal-D is funny: (at vote.debian.org) Here is one: Proposal D: Rescinds the previous GR, reverting to the version 1.0 of the social contract. The actual text of the GR is: This amendment deletes everything but clause 1 of this proposal, so that the entire proposal now reads: 1. that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within the General Resolution Editorial Amendments To The Social Contract (2004 vote 003) be immediately rescinded. Thus this web page should be more like: Proposal D: Rescinds the previous GR, reverting to the version 1.0 of the social contract. This amendment deletes everything but clause 1 of proposal A. The actual text of the GR is: The Debian Project, hereby resolves: 1. that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within the General Resolution Editorial Amendments To The Social Contract (2004 vote 003) be immediately rescinded. This makes it clear which previous proposal we are talking about on the web page and gurantees exact resolution contents. Is this something everyone agree? Again, editorial changes are tough one ... :) Osamu PS: I send original summary to everyone seconded prior to posting it to avoid this kind of confusion. No complaint nor suggestion was there. Due to the time constrain, this updated one is posted without prior consultation. I merely performed request by Marco d'Itri while supplimenting with rationale summary since Craig's original did not have it. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Summary: Proposal - Rescind GR 2004-003
On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 09:44:03AM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote: The Debian Project, hereby resolves: 1. that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within the General Resolution Editorial Amendments To The Social Contract (2004 vote 003) be immediately rescinded. Yes, this is much clearer. Seconded. pgp5MU3zGLKuR.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Summary: Proposal - Rescind GR 2004-003
On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 01:06:00AM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote: * Can Craig and people who seconded original proposal [2] to second this as the formal rationale for Craig's proposal [1]? Yes, seconded. Craig Sanders proposed the following resolution [1] (reformatted): The Debian Project, affirming its commitment to principles of freeness for all works it distributes, but recognizing that changing the Social Contract today would have grave consequences for the upcoming stable release, a fact which does not serve our goals or the interests of our users, hereby resolves: that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within the General Resolution Editorial Amendments To The Social Contract (2004 vote 003) be immediately rescinded. pgpfyYpgxV81T.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Summary: Proposal - Rescind GR 2004-003
Quoting Xavier Roche: On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 01:06:00AM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote: * Can Craig and people who seconded original proposal [2] to second this as the formal rationale for Craig's proposal [1]? Yes, seconded. Seconded as well (if really needed). Craig Sanders proposed the following resolution [1] (reformatted): The Debian Project, affirming its commitment to principles of freeness for all works it distributes, but recognizing that changing the Social Contract today would have grave consequences for the upcoming stable release, a fact which does not serve our goals or the interests of our users, hereby resolves: that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within the General Resolution Editorial Amendments To The Social Contract (2004 vote 003) be immediately rescinded. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog -+- http://www.ouaza.com Formation Linux et logiciel libre : http://www.logidee.com Earn money with free software: http://www.geniustrader.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Summary: Proposal - Rescind GR 2004-003
OA == Osamu Aoki [2004-5-7] [...] OA * Can Craig and people who seconded original proposal [2] to second OA this as the formal rationale for Craig's proposal [1]? I think that Craig's proposal should be on the ballot, therefore I signed it. I more or less agree with some (actually not so many, by far not all) of the rationales listed by Osamu. However, I don't think I need to agree with all of these, or even any, for that matter; in fact, I don't exactly understand what our secretary would want seconders to state about the rationales part. Coming to the Osamu's proposed reformulation, I like Craig's original wording much more than that. In particular I don't like that «but recognizing that changing the Social Contract today would have grave consequences for the upcoming stable release, a fact which does not serve our goals or the interests of our users» thing at all: I suggest stripping it off completely. However, as a merely pragmatic position of convenience, I will be happy with Osamu's reformulation if Craig and all of the other seconders state that they are fine with it. (Given our voting system, there will be actually no problem to have both Craig's and Osamu's proposals on the ballot, but I tend to think that too much options might be somewhat confusing, therefore I'm willing to be pragmatic here.) -- Salve, | GNU PG (GPG) Key ID: 9396865D Davide | http://www.linux.it/~salve/ pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Summary: Proposal - Rescind GR 2004-003
On Sat, May 08, 2004 at 10:14:38AM +0200, Davide G. M. Salvetti wrote: OA == Osamu Aoki [2004-5-7] [...] OA * Can Craig and people who seconded original proposal [2] to second OA this as the formal rationale for Craig's proposal [1]? I think that Craig's proposal should be on the ballot, therefore I signed it. I more or less agree with some (actually not so many, by far not all) of the rationales listed by Osamu. Please point out if you find factual mistakes. However, I don't think I need to agree with all of these, or even any, for that matter; in fact, I don't exactly understand what our secretary would want seconders to state about the rationales part. The reason was explained by our secretary. He does not wish to be caught in the middle. (like now) Coming to the Osamu's proposed reformulation, I like Craig's original wording much more than that. In particular I don't like that «but recognizing that changing the Social Contract today would have grave consequences for the upcoming stable release, a fact which does not serve our goals or the interests of our users» thing at all: I suggest stripping it off completely. Hmm I had no intention to change Craig's original. What he wrote was an incomplete sentence referencing Steve's proposal. These words slipped in from Steve's when I tried to make a full proposal out of them. I think your interpretation of deletes everything but clause 1 of this proposal makes sense too. I merely thought Craig was killing clause 2. I will second it either way. (But I do not want to have 2 ways.) Craig, please speak up which way you meant. And let's move on. Osamu signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Summary: Proposal - Rescind GR 2004-003
On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 12:41:50AM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote: Hmm I had no intention to change Craig's original. What he wrote was an incomplete sentence referencing Steve's proposal. These words slipped in from Steve's when I tried to make a full proposal out of them. I think your interpretation of deletes everything but clause 1 of this proposal makes sense too. I merely thought Craig was killing clause 2. I will second it either way. (But I do not want to have 2 ways.) Craig, please speak up which way you meant. And let's move on. i originally meant delete everything but clause 1, but it really doesn't matter. the opening paragraph is just filler fluff and it doesn't bother me whether it is there or not. i.e. i'm happy with the amendment either way. the important thing is that the proposed action is clear and unambigous - rescind GR 2004-003. craig -- craig sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] The next time you vote, remember that Regime change begins at home signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Summary: Proposal - Rescind GR 2004-003
On Sat, May 08, 2004 at 10:14:38AM +0200, Davide G. M. Salvetti wrote: Coming to the Osamu's proposed reformulation, I like Craig's original wording much more than that. In particular I don't like that «but recognizing that changing the Social Contract today would have grave consequences for the upcoming stable release, a fact which does not serve our goals or the interests of our users» thing at all: I suggest stripping it off completely. So do I; apart from that phrase, I have no problems with the rationales being posted. -- EARTH smog | bricks AIR -- mud -- FIRE soda water | tequila WATER -- with thanks to fortune signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Summary: Proposal - Rescind GR 2004-003
On Sat, May 08, 2004 at 10:14:38AM +0200, Davide G. M. Salvetti wrote: OA == Osamu Aoki [2004-5-7] [...] OA * Can Craig and people who seconded original proposal [2] to second OA this as the formal rationale for Craig's proposal [1]? I think that Craig's proposal should be on the ballot, therefore I signed it. I more or less agree with some (actually not so many, by far not all) of the rationales listed by Osamu. Please point out if you find factual mistakes. However, I don't think I need to agree with all of these, or even any, for that matter; in fact, I don't exactly understand what our secretary would want seconders to state about the rationales part. The reason was explained by our secretary. He does not wish to be caught in the middle. (like now) Coming to the Osamu's proposed reformulation, I like Craig's original wording much more than that. In particular I don't like that «but recognizing that changing the Social Contract today would have grave consequences for the upcoming stable release, a fact which does not serve our goals or the interests of our users» thing at all: I suggest stripping it off completely. Hmm I had no intention to change Craig's original. What he wrote was an incomplete sentence referencing Steve's proposal. These words slipped in from Steve's when I tried to make a full proposal out of them. I think your interpretation of deletes everything but clause 1 of this proposal makes sense too. I merely thought Craig was killing clause 2. I will second it either way. (But I do not want to have 2 ways.) Craig, please speak up which way you meant. And let's move on. Osamu signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Summary: Proposal - Rescind GR 2004-003
On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 12:41:50AM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote: Hmm I had no intention to change Craig's original. What he wrote was an incomplete sentence referencing Steve's proposal. These words slipped in from Steve's when I tried to make a full proposal out of them. I think your interpretation of deletes everything but clause 1 of this proposal makes sense too. I merely thought Craig was killing clause 2. I will second it either way. (But I do not want to have 2 ways.) Craig, please speak up which way you meant. And let's move on. i originally meant delete everything but clause 1, but it really doesn't matter. the opening paragraph is just filler fluff and it doesn't bother me whether it is there or not. i.e. i'm happy with the amendment either way. the important thing is that the proposed action is clear and unambigous - rescind GR 2004-003. craig -- craig sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] The next time you vote, remember that Regime change begins at home signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Summary: Proposal - Rescind GR 2004-003
On Thu, 6 May 2004 19:10:37 -0400, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 01:06:00AM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote: * Can Craig and people who seconded original proposal [2] to second this as the formal rationale for Craig's proposal [1]? There doesn't seem to be any formal requirement for rationales to be seconded. Not formal requirements, no. I just like to ensure that I know where the rationale came from, and whether the sponsors signed on to it (I don't want to be caught in between a dispute in wording) manoj -- Never say you know a man until you have divided an inheritance with him. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Summary: Proposal - Rescind GR 2004-003
On Tue, 4 May 2004 00:16:25 +0200, Osamu Aoki [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Hi, Since Craig's proposal [1] seems to have gotten enough seconds [2], let me summarize it while giving a new concise title and a new thread. Excuse me if I am biased. If you want to see this adopted as the rationale on the web page, please a) sign the email, b) Try and get some agrement with the proposer and co-sponsors that you all agree that this is an rationale y'all can live with. thanks, manoj -- Humor in the Court: Did you ever stay all night with this man in New York? I refuse to answer that question. Did you ever stay all night with this man in Chicago? I refuse to answer that question. Did you ever stay all night with this man in Miami? No. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Summary: Proposal - Rescind GR 2004-003
On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 01:06:00AM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote: * Can Craig and people who seconded original proposal [2] to second this as the formal rationale for Craig's proposal [1]? There doesn't seem to be any formal requirement for rationales to be seconded. Personally, I don't agree with all of the statements which have been prosposed as rationale, I think it's enough to point out that other people think they are significant. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Summary: Proposal - Rescind GR 2004-003
On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 01:06:00AM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote: * Can Craig and people who seconded original proposal [2] to second this as the formal rationale for Craig's proposal [1]? i am happy with this version of my amendment and the rationale for it. * Those whose name appear but not seconding resolution, please approve the use of your name in this context. (Anthony Towns and Ian Jackson) If not OK, I will appreciate suggestion for the acceptable alternative. Craig Sanders proposed the following resolution [1] (reformatted): The Debian Project, affirming its commitment to principles of freeness for all works it distributes, but recognizing that changing the Social Contract today would have grave consequences for the upcoming stable release, a fact which does not serve our goals or the interests of our users, hereby resolves: that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within the General Resolution Editorial Amendments To The Social Contract (2004 vote 003) be immediately rescinded. 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 the hidden issues. * We need to get the sarge out the door ASAP. [4] * All other proposed GRs to get the sarge out are better than the situation created by GR (2004-003). But they still seem to put heavy limitations on the post-sarge releases. This proposal solves them for good. [8] * Title of GR (2004-003) was, at least, misleading although it may not have been intentionally deceptive. * Change of SC by GR (2004-003) was not clarification but a radical change which subverts the original intent of the old SC. * GR (2004-003) may have been incomplete. * Rescinding GR (2004-003) will enable useful data, font, documentation, and firmware [5] to be included in main. This will make Debian useful distribution. * Rescinding GR (2004-003) will clarify and affirm that the correct interpretation of the word software in old SC does not include things such as data, font, documentation, and firmware. * Historical document [5] has its own value and even good willed editorial change [6] may not be even desirable. (Some of us will also support other proposals for the GR if they address our concern.) * Obscure arrangement for distribution required by the GR (2004-003) may marginalize Debian only for Holier Than Stallman, i.e., the fringe fanatics. We do not want to be seen chasing the _cause_ without thinking its _consequence_ by doing this [7]. * No apologetic statement in SC. * We had enough discussion on this subject and some of us are sick of it. - References and their links: [1]http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/04/msg00307.html (Craig Sanders) [2] As I see as of Thu, 06 May 2004 23:35:31 +0200: http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/04/msg00322.html (Raphael Hertzog) http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/04/msg00329.html (Xavier Roche) http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/04/msg00339.html (Wouter Verhelst) http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/04/msg00393.html (Osamu Aoki) http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/04/msg00421.html (Marco d'Itri, need to be signed) http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/04/msg00422.html (Davide G. M. Salvetti) http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/04/msg00423.html (Raul Miller) http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/04/msg00427.html (Hamish Moffatt) http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/05/msg00089.html (Andreas Barth) http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/05/msg00075.html (Theodore Ts'o, sig?) http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/05/msg00097.html (David N. Welton, DD?) [3]Anthony Towns: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/04/msg00074.html [4]The current situation over Debian in general is summarized by Ian Jackson: http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/05/msg00060.html [5]Although the fact that data, font, and documentation were not restricted to be DSFG is obvious in the old SC since: Old SC: Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software, New SC: Debian Will Remain 100% Free. Whether the firmware is software or not is a debatable one if the word software is taken out of context. But it is clear that the intent of 1997 SC did not consider the firmware component as a software which is required to be DSFG free. This historical perspective is the key here. See:
Re: Summary: Proposal - Rescind GR 2004-003
On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 07:10:37PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 01:06:00AM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote: * Can Craig and people who seconded original proposal [2] to second this as the formal rationale for Craig's proposal [1]? There doesn't seem to be any formal requirement for rationales to be seconded. Personally, I don't agree with all of the statements which have been prosposed as rationale, I think it's enough to point out that other people think they are significant. In order to reflect this fact, I used rationale raised for this proposal ^^ So if you have better expression for this to reflect the situation, I will appreciate your suggestion. Osamu signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Summary: Proposal - Rescind GR 2004-003
On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 01:06:00AM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote: * Can Craig and people who seconded original proposal [2] to second this as the formal rationale for Craig's proposal [1]? There doesn't seem to be any formal requirement for rationales to be seconded. Personally, I don't agree with all of the statements which have been prosposed as rationale, I think it's enough to point out that other people think they are significant. -- Raul
Re: Summary: Proposal - Rescind GR 2004-003
On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 01:06:00AM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote: * Can Craig and people who seconded original proposal [2] to second this as the formal rationale for Craig's proposal [1]? i am happy with this version of my amendment and the rationale for it. * Those whose name appear but not seconding resolution, please approve the use of your name in this context. (Anthony Towns and Ian Jackson) If not OK, I will appreciate suggestion for the acceptable alternative. Craig Sanders proposed the following resolution [1] (reformatted): The Debian Project, affirming its commitment to principles of freeness for all works it distributes, but recognizing that changing the Social Contract today would have grave consequences for the upcoming stable release, a fact which does not serve our goals or the interests of our users, hereby resolves: that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within the General Resolution Editorial Amendments To The Social Contract (2004 vote 003) be immediately rescinded. 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 the hidden issues. * We need to get the sarge out the door ASAP. [4] * All other proposed GRs to get the sarge out are better than the situation created by GR (2004-003). But they still seem to put heavy limitations on the post-sarge releases. This proposal solves them for good. [8] * Title of GR (2004-003) was, at least, misleading although it may not have been intentionally deceptive. * Change of SC by GR (2004-003) was not clarification but a radical change which subverts the original intent of the old SC. * GR (2004-003) may have been incomplete. * Rescinding GR (2004-003) will enable useful data, font, documentation, and firmware [5] to be included in main. This will make Debian useful distribution. * Rescinding GR (2004-003) will clarify and affirm that the correct interpretation of the word software in old SC does not include things such as data, font, documentation, and firmware. * Historical document [5] has its own value and even good willed editorial change [6] may not be even desirable. (Some of us will also support other proposals for the GR if they address our concern.) * Obscure arrangement for distribution required by the GR (2004-003) may marginalize Debian only for Holier Than Stallman, i.e., the fringe fanatics. We do not want to be seen chasing the _cause_ without thinking its _consequence_ by doing this [7]. * No apologetic statement in SC. * We had enough discussion on this subject and some of us are sick of it. - References and their links: [1]http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/04/msg00307.html (Craig Sanders) [2] As I see as of Thu, 06 May 2004 23:35:31 +0200: http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/04/msg00322.html (Raphael Hertzog) http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/04/msg00329.html (Xavier Roche) http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/04/msg00339.html (Wouter Verhelst) http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/04/msg00393.html (Osamu Aoki) http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/04/msg00421.html (Marco d'Itri, need to be signed) http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/04/msg00422.html (Davide G. M. Salvetti) http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/04/msg00423.html (Raul Miller) http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/04/msg00427.html (Hamish Moffatt) http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/05/msg00089.html (Andreas Barth) http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/05/msg00075.html (Theodore Ts'o, sig?) http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/05/msg00097.html (David N. Welton, DD?) [3]Anthony Towns: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/04/msg00074.html [4]The current situation over Debian in general is summarized by Ian Jackson: http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/05/msg00060.html [5]Although the fact that data, font, and documentation were not restricted to be DSFG is obvious in the old SC since: Old SC: Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software, New SC: Debian Will Remain 100% Free. Whether the firmware is software or not is a debatable one if the word software is taken out of context. But it is clear that the intent of 1997 SC did not consider the firmware component as a software which is required to be DSFG free. This historical perspective is the key here. See:
Re: Summary: Proposal - Rescind GR 2004-003
On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 07:10:37PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 01:06:00AM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote: * Can Craig and people who seconded original proposal [2] to second this as the formal rationale for Craig's proposal [1]? There doesn't seem to be any formal requirement for rationales to be seconded. Personally, I don't agree with all of the statements which have been prosposed as rationale, I think it's enough to point out that other people think they are significant. In order to reflect this fact, I used rationale raised for this proposal ^^ So if you have better expression for this to reflect the situation, I will appreciate your suggestion. Osamu signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Summary: Proposal - Rescind GR 2004-003
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 the hidden issues. * We need to get the sarge out the door ASAP. [4] * All other proposed GRs to get the sarge out are better than the situation created by GR (2004-003). But they still seem to put heavy limitations on the past-sarge releases. This proposal solves them for good. Are you sure about this? The problem is posed by RC issues which were tagged sarge-ignore. This means that they would be ignored *only* for sarge, and not allowed to remain after. * Change of SC by GR (2004-003) was not clarification but a radical change which subverts the original intent of the old SC. So the original intent of the SC was to have non-free non-software in main? I remember Bruce Perens saying the opposite (but I'm too lazy to search where, so I may be in mistake). Have you got any reference which confirms this interpretation? Bye, Guido -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Summary: Proposal - Rescind GR 2004-003
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: Here is the list of rationale raised for this proposal: ^^ Please note this raised. * 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 the hidden issues. * We need to get the sarge out the door ASAP. [4] * All other proposed GRs to get the sarge out are better than the situation created by GR (2004-003). But they still seem to put heavy limitations on the past-sarge releases. This proposal solves them for good. Are you sure about this? The problem is posed by RC issues which were tagged sarge-ignore. I thought: * sarge-ignore means that, although there is a good discussion going on for RCness of the bugs, RM will ignore debatable ones for sarge by the decision of RM. * RM changed his position on sarge-ignore because the new clarified SC text left him with no room to interpret SC to allow these components as sarge-ignore. This means that they would be ignored *only* for sarge, and not allowed to remain after. Really? Following the result of Google search of 'sarge-ignore debian' leads me to: http://people.debian.org/~ajt/sarge_rc_policy.txt | Further to this, certain issues may be exempted from being considered | release critical for sarge by the release manager. This is expressed | by tagging the report sarge-ignore; this should not be done without | explicit authorisation from the release manager. This definition of sarge-ignore made no commitment that the next release will not ignore these RC bugs. Let's continue. | Here's the list: | | 1. DFSG-freeness | | Code in main and contrib must meet the DFSG, both in .debs and | in the source (including the .orig.tar.gz) | | Documentation in main and contrib must be freely distributable, | and wherever possible should be under a DFSG-free license. This | will likely become a requirement post-sarge. likely become a requirement is clearly not equal to not allowed to remain after. This means to me that discussion is ongoing and RM acknowledged that the camp pushing for DSFG compliance for documentation is wining. (I like to see DSFG issues resolved for GFDL by the new nicer GFDL. But this is a separate issue.) You can read on about firmware issues and its GPL compatibility issues there. But I see nothing stating that sarge++ will not have firmware in Debian main. Did I miss something here? * Change of SC by GR (2004-003) was not clarification but a radical change which subverts the original intent of the old SC. So the original intent of the SC was to have non-free non-software in main? I remember Bruce Perens saying the opposite (but I'm too lazy to search where, so I may be in mistake). Have you got any reference which confirms this interpretation? I listed this due to following message by Craig: http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/04/msg00314.html which said: ... the GR was proposed with a misleading title (it was NOT a simple editorial change, it was a radical change to the meaning of the Social Contract which will ultimately result in the death by irrelevance of debian) and effectively got through by stealth. To me, it was clear that there are people who understood SC this way. The result of this GR will only tell which side had more supporters. If you find solid consensus on this issue, please post to here or debian-private (if it was originally in debian-private, CC: me). Osamu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Summary: Proposal - Rescind GR 2004-003
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 the hidden issues. * We need to get the sarge out the door ASAP. [4] * All other proposed GRs to get the sarge out are better than the situation created by GR (2004-003). But they still seem to put heavy limitations on the past-sarge releases. This proposal solves them for good. Are you sure about this? The problem is posed by RC issues which were tagged sarge-ignore. This means that they would be ignored *only* for sarge, and not allowed to remain after. * Change of SC by GR (2004-003) was not clarification but a radical change which subverts the original intent of the old SC. So the original intent of the SC was to have non-free non-software in main? I remember Bruce Perens saying the opposite (but I'm too lazy to search where, so I may be in mistake). Have you got any reference which confirms this interpretation? Bye, Guido
Re: Summary: Proposal - Rescind GR 2004-003
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: Here is the list of rationale raised for this proposal: ^^ Please note this raised. * 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 the hidden issues. * We need to get the sarge out the door ASAP. [4] * All other proposed GRs to get the sarge out are better than the situation created by GR (2004-003). But they still seem to put heavy limitations on the past-sarge releases. This proposal solves them for good. Are you sure about this? The problem is posed by RC issues which were tagged sarge-ignore. I thought: * sarge-ignore means that, although there is a good discussion going on for RCness of the bugs, RM will ignore debatable ones for sarge by the decision of RM. * RM changed his position on sarge-ignore because the new clarified SC text left him with no room to interpret SC to allow these components as sarge-ignore. This means that they would be ignored *only* for sarge, and not allowed to remain after. Really? Following the result of Google search of 'sarge-ignore debian' leads me to: http://people.debian.org/~ajt/sarge_rc_policy.txt | Further to this, certain issues may be exempted from being considered | release critical for sarge by the release manager. This is expressed | by tagging the report sarge-ignore; this should not be done without | explicit authorisation from the release manager. This definition of sarge-ignore made no commitment that the next release will not ignore these RC bugs. Let's continue. | Here's the list: | | 1. DFSG-freeness | | Code in main and contrib must meet the DFSG, both in .debs and | in the source (including the .orig.tar.gz) | | Documentation in main and contrib must be freely distributable, | and wherever possible should be under a DFSG-free license. This | will likely become a requirement post-sarge. likely become a requirement is clearly not equal to not allowed to remain after. This means to me that discussion is ongoing and RM acknowledged that the camp pushing for DSFG compliance for documentation is wining. (I like to see DSFG issues resolved for GFDL by the new nicer GFDL. But this is a separate issue.) You can read on about firmware issues and its GPL compatibility issues there. But I see nothing stating that sarge++ will not have firmware in Debian main. Did I miss something here? * Change of SC by GR (2004-003) was not clarification but a radical change which subverts the original intent of the old SC. So the original intent of the SC was to have non-free non-software in main? I remember Bruce Perens saying the opposite (but I'm too lazy to search where, so I may be in mistake). Have you got any reference which confirms this interpretation? I listed this due to following message by Craig: http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/04/msg00314.html which said: ... the GR was proposed with a misleading title (it was NOT a simple editorial change, it was a radical change to the meaning of the Social Contract which will ultimately result in the death by irrelevance of debian) and effectively got through by stealth. To me, it was clear that there are people who understood SC this way. The result of this GR will only tell which side had more supporters. If you find solid consensus on this issue, please post to here or debian-private (if it was originally in debian-private, CC: me). Osamu
