Chris Waters [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ah, so your suggestion is that we continue discussing and debating the
idea for a few more YEARS!?! The entire logo issue has been on hold
since, what, '97? Late '96?
If we had a concensus, we wouldn't need a vote, yes? Or am I missing
something
On Tue, Jun 29, 1999 at 02:35:01AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
Yes, you are. The situation has changed. We now have a logo, we
voted on that, and I'm certainly not trying to change that fact.
If you want to be pedantic this vote is actually an attempt to reverse
the previous logo vote,
Philip Hands [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My complaint comes from the fact that there was absolutely no
discussion about this new vote prior to it being proposed.
If that were true, I might sympathize. Since it's not true, I have to
wonder just what you're trying to pull here. (To be kind, I'll
Yes, please vote for FURTHER DISCUSSION! I think we only need one more
vote to reach quorum so that FURTHER DISCUSSION doesn't win :
--
Robert Woodcock - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yes I do believe there is a violent thing inside of me -- Everclear
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
[contrib]
You can't modify everything it does.
How so?
--
see shy jo
Will Lowe wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jun 1999, Wichert Akkerman - Debian project leader wrote:
1) create nonfree.debian.org domain
I thinks that's even not clear enough, because the debian.org part
makes it somehow official again. Personally, I would prefer
unofficial.debian.org.
But
The ballot will contain the options:
1) create nonfree.debian.org domain
I would like to amend this to make it say non-free.debian.org. That is
consitent with non-us.debian.org and with the current section name,
non-free.
--
see shy jo
On Mon, Jun 28, 1999 at 06:53:25PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
[contrib]
You can't modify everything it does.
Well, if you consider a program which uses Motif (ignoring lesstif's
existence), you can't modify Motif so you cannot modify everything about
a program -- some
On Mon, Jun 28, 1999 at 06:49:18PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
I think that if we want to change anything we should split non-free in
open-source and non-open-source or something like this ...
Again, you misunderstand. The Open Source Definition is currently identiacal
to the DFSG. Nothing
Adam Heath wrote:
dpkg-awk 'section:.*non-free.*' -- package|sed -ne 's/\(..*\)/\1/p'
This fails to pick up libforms0.88 and any other package that doesn't
have the Section line. Not everyone uses:
dpkg-gencontrol -isp
Peter
Philip Hands [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The only replies to the proposal mail were ``seconded'' type
responses, with no attempt to show a justification for the view.
On -vote yes, because most of the seconders had already posted
comments on -devel. All the discussion seems to have been on
Previously Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Most votes (like the non-free issue) have been called with no
formal proposal, seconds, or a discussion period. I have strong
feeling against taking any action whatsoever merely on these votes.
Ahum? The non-free issue a) hasn't had a call for votes
On Tue, Jun 29, 1999 at 08:59:38AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I am wondering what value do these suddenly burgeoning votes
have? I understand that they may give us an understanding about
public opinion, but what other charter are they run under? They
certainly do not seem to
On Tue, Jun 29, 1999 at 08:59:38AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hi,
I am wondering what value do these suddenly burgeoning votes
have? I understand that they may give us an understanding about
public opinion, but what other charter are they run under? They
certainly do not seem
On Tue, Jun 29, 1999 at 08:59:38AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I am wondering what value do these suddenly burgeoning votes
have?
FWIW, I'm also a little troubled by the plethora of votes. I quite
like that Debian generally just lets the people who are interested and
motivated do
On Wed, Jun 30, 1999 at 02:34:24AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
FWIW, I'm also a little troubled by the plethora of votes. I quite
So have I. Some of these I can see the need, such as the non-free vote
that's coming up. But I thought something like the logo swap could have
been settled through
On Tue, 29 Jun 1999, Darren O. Benham wrote:
One posibility is to increase the number of sponsors needed to a level where
the proposer would have to activly try to get sponsors. It's pretty easy
to get 5 sponsors but (maybe) not 10... so he'd get 5-7 automatic sponsors
and then would have
On Tue, Jun 29, 1999 at 11:37:02AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
As secretary, I would love that. The web team will need volunteers to
write those posistion statements, however. During the Leader Elections, I
tried to get platform statments that could be put up on vote.debian.org and
it
On Tue, 29 Jun 1999, Darren O. Benham wrote:
I don't think it should be any blind ramblings but a situation where the
Secretary is required to write the pro and con summaries won't work,
either. Even he has opinions that would taint the choice he didn't like.
Well, I mean you should get to
On Tue, Jun 29, 1999 at 12:02:12PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jun 1999, Darren O. Benham wrote:
I don't think it should be any blind ramblings but a situation where the
Secretary is required to write the pro and con summaries won't work,
either. Even he has opinions that
* RM = Raul Miller
RM Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
libmagick4g-lzw
openssl
gpg-{rsa,idea}
All perfectly DFSG free. In non-free because of something the DFSG is
completely silent about, software patents. I tried to do something about
this, however there was very little
Chris Waters [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On -vote yes, because most of the seconders had already posted
comments on -devel. All the discussion seems to have been on -devel,
in fact. (You'll have to check the archives on master if you don't
believe me, because the stuff on the web page is woefully
Isn't this discussion a waste of time?
Shouldn't we be dealing with more important things wrt to debian? (we all
know that the logo is not *the* most important part in a distro, esp. when
debian doesn't pay much attention to marketing as the rest commercial
distros do)
Personally, I never
Philip Hands [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'll leave you with a fairly simple question:
I like the swirl logo, and want it to be widely used.
I don't like the bottle logo, and don't want it as our official logo.
How should I vote ?
AH! Now I understand where you're coming from. And I
* JG = Jason Gunthorpe
JG On Tue, 29 Jun 1999, Darren O. Benham wrote:
I don't think it should be any blind ramblings but a situation where the
Secretary is required to write the pro and con summaries won't work,
either. Even he has opinions that would taint the choice he didn't like.
25 matches
Mail list logo
