Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Double standards are damned fun!
"Does Debian include non-free software?"
"Well that depends ... Debian doesn't officially provide non-free, no."
"Unofficially?"
"It's all there, waiting for you."
"Cool."
Thats the difference between the Debian
On Sun, 11 Jun 2000, Anthony Towns wrote:
snip
dists/ woody/
main
contrib
non-free
todists/woody/
main
add-on/
contrib
non-free
In the end, it takes a lot to change our constitution and I fail to see what
would be gained.
On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 01:36:43AM +, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
[snipped an interesting and long discussion on voting methods]
If members of debian want to perfect their voting system,
then I
On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 02:58:35PM -0700, Darren O. Benham wrote:
In the end, it takes a lot to change our constitution and I fail to see what
would be gained.
Elimination of ambuguity.
Recent events have persuaded me, however, that lots of people like their
ambiguity, even if it ultimately
On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
I should point out that leaving this issue unresolved makes it possible for
people to raise a legitimate challenge to our voting procedure, since the
present description avails itself of multiple interpretations of the same
set of ballots.
I
I could rediscribe the method but I couldn't make changes as large as what
were suggested without going through the formal change process for the
constitution.
On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 07:27:43PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
I should point out
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On 7 Jun 2000, John Goerzen wrote:
Debian General Resolution
Resolved:
A. That the Debian Social Contract with the Free Software Community be
amended as follows:
1. That text of Section 5 be modified to read: We acknowledge that
some of our
Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Double standards are damned fun!
Does Debian include non-free software?
Well that depends ... Debian doesn't officially provide non-free, no.
Unofficially?
It's all there, waiting for you.
Cool.
Thats the difference between the Debian distribution
I second this amendment.
Anthony Towns wrote:
On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 11:03:33PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
DEBIAN GENERAL RESOLUTION
Proposed by: John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I wish to propose an ammendment to the proposed resolution as follows.
The text of the resolution should be
In the end, it takes a lot to change our constitution and I fail to see what
would be gained.
On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 01:36:43AM +, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
[snipped an interesting and long discussion on voting methods]
If members of debian want to perfect their voting system,
then I
On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 05:22:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
The intention of this ammendment is to provide a means for developers to
offer their support of the existing social contract while acknowledging
that the current situation does indeed give somewhat too much credibility.
I'm afraid
On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 02:58:35PM -0700, Darren O. Benham wrote:
In the end, it takes a lot to change our constitution and I fail to see what
would be gained.
Elimination of ambuguity.
Recent events have persuaded me, however, that lots of people like their
ambiguity, even if it ultimately
On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
I should point out that leaving this issue unresolved makes it possible for
people to raise a legitimate challenge to our voting procedure, since the
present description avails itself of multiple interpretations of the same
set of ballots.
I
I could rediscribe the method but I couldn't make changes as large as what
were suggested without going through the formal change process for the
constitution.
On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 07:27:43PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
I should point out
14 matches
Mail list logo
