On Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 10:35:01AM +1100, Drake Diedrich wrote:
And don't you just live the mention of distribution by floppy. How many
would that be now? :) Tape.. how many Debian users have ever even used a
tape drive? The manifesto hardly needs editting, it's an entertaining
On Sat, 30 Sep 2000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 04:31:56AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
There hasn't been any other attempt to reconcile the above three points
of view. So much for consensus building.
So, uh, would anyone like to actual suggest some course of action that
John Galt wrote:
However, I find konqueror (in kdebase) quite able already. It does
everything I've needed netscape to do, including ssl, cookie management,
java and javascript, and good page layout.
What was the version number of that in Potato again?
Um, the contents of potato are
On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 05:33:11AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Should we have another vote to see if the social contract deserves
supermajority protection? Is there some other way of doing things that
won't require a boring mass of legalese or continued pointless ineffectual
flaming and
On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 01:39:34AM +1100, Peter Eckersley wrote:
No. There's nothing wrong if someone feels dissapointed if "no" wins by 80%.
It would mean that a brutal majority of the Debian developers care little
about the politics of the Project. I would not find that result very
On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 05:21:04PM -0500, Joseph Carter wrote:
YMM(and probably does)V. However if more than 80% of people feel that
Debian would be lost without non-free software six years after Debian
began, I've got to wonder if we have accomplished anything at all. I
Then use a
Joseph Carter wrote:
Without regard to constitutionality, I believe there are technical reasons
why non-free should remain a little while longer. Netscape is the biggest
of them at the moment since currently Mozilla is not ready to replace it.
However, I find konqueror (in kdebase) quite able
On Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 06:24:54PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
You can't because it ain't there. The only thing the constitution says
about any of this is that the secretary may make a decision. Apparently,
that decision need not be otherwise constitutional. I don't believe this
On Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 10:35:01AM +1100, Drake Diedrich wrote:
And don't you just live the mention of distribution by floppy. How many
would that be now? :) Tape.. how many Debian users have ever even used a
tape drive? The manifesto hardly needs editting, it's an entertaining
On Sat, 30 Sep 2000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 04:31:56AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
There hasn't been any other attempt to reconcile the above three points
of view. So much for consensus building.
So, uh, would anyone like to actual suggest some course of action that
Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 06:24:54PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
You can't because it ain't there. The only thing the constitution says
about any of this is that the secretary may make a decision. Apparently,
that decision need not be
On Fri, 29 Sep 2000, Joey Hess wrote:
Joseph Carter wrote:
Without regard to constitutionality, I believe there are technical reasons
why non-free should remain a little while longer. Netscape is the biggest
of them at the moment since currently Mozilla is not ready to replace it.
John Galt wrote:
However, I find konqueror (in kdebase) quite able already. It does
everything I've needed netscape to do, including ssl, cookie management,
java and javascript, and good page layout.
What was the version number of that in Potato again?
Um, the contents of potato are
On Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 07:57:32AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Joseph I think I would be disappointed if the vote was
Joseph overwhelmingly against as the (seemingly largely uninformed)
Ah yes, the public disagrees with me, so it must be the
uninformed, unwashed masses who don't
On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 03:34:13AM -0600, John Galt wrote:
However, I find konqueror (in kdebase) quite able already. It does
everything I've needed netscape to do, including ssl, cookie management,
java and javascript, and good page layout.
What was the version number of that in Potato
On Sat, 30 Sep 2000, Jordi Mallach wrote:
Ah yes, the public disagrees with me, so it must be the
uninformed, unwashed masses who don't know what's good for them. Can
you feel the cedibility dropping?
No. There's nothing wrong if someone feels dissapointed if no wins by 80%.
It
Jordi Mallach writes:
On Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 07:57:32AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Joseph I think I would be disappointed if the vote was
Joseph overwhelmingly against as the (seemingly largely uninformed)
Ah yes, the public disagrees with me, so it must be the
uninformed,
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
As far as I can tell though there weren't any actual solutions to the
problem suggested.
The problem is:
(a) A group of developers don't think the social contract can
legally (according to the constitution) be modified
Jordi == Jordi Mallach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jordi No. There's nothing wrong if someone feels dissapointed if
Jordi no wins by 80%. It would mean that a brutal majority of the
Jordi Debian developers care little about the politics of the
Jordi Project. I would not find that result very
On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 05:33:11AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Should we have another vote to see if the social contract deserves
supermajority protection? Is there some other way of doing things that
won't require a boring mass of legalese or continued pointless ineffectual
flaming and
Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't think so.. It seems like the only real solution is to set this
issue aside and fix the constitution first. This too would be precedent
setting, but IMO it would be a better precedent than effectively modifying
the constitution in practice but
On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 01:39:34AM +1100, Peter Eckersley wrote:
No. There's nothing wrong if someone feels dissapointed if no wins by 80%.
It would mean that a brutal majority of the Debian developers care little
about the politics of the Project. I would not find that result very
On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 06:14:53PM -0400, Robert D. Hilliard wrote:
On 19 July, Manoj proposed a constitutional amendment requiring
a super-majority vote to change the SC or DFSG. This proposal is at:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-project-0007/msg00061.html
On the same date
On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 05:34:55PM -0500, Joseph Carter wrote:
But then of course, some people on this list just don't think little
things like following the guidelines we've set for ourselves is important.
And some people like to bleat and moan, and ignore the simple point
in the current
On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 05:21:04PM -0500, Joseph Carter wrote:
YMM(and probably does)V. However if more than 80% of people feel that
Debian would be lost without non-free software six years after Debian
began, I've got to wonder if we have accomplished anything at all. I
Then use a different
On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 11:08:04AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
Then use a different criteria for measuring accomplishment. Spend a day
configuring a Red Hat system, and you'll know that technically we
have achieved a lot. Don't undervalue that.
But that's not the only thing to measure.
--
On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 02:27:26AM +0200, Jordi Mallach wrote:
On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 11:08:04AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
Then use a different criteria for measuring accomplishment. Spend a day
configuring a Red Hat system, and you'll know that technically we
have achieved a lot. Don't
27 matches
Mail list logo
