On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 04:55, Jochen Voss wrote:
I second the above amendment.
Doesn't this mean the BR amendment now has enough seconds?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 04:33:51AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 04:55, Jochen Voss wrote:
I second the above amendment.
Doesn't this mean the BR amendment now has enough seconds?
I hope so :-)
Jochen
--
http://seehuhn.de/
signature.asc
Description: Digital
Hi,
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 04:55, Jochen Voss wrote:
I second the above amendment.
Doesn't this mean the BR amendment now has enough seconds?
Probably, but we can't proceed until BR3 either has enough seconds, or it's
reasonably clear that it won't get them.
--
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 04:33:51 -0400, Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 04:55, Jochen Voss wrote:
I second the above amendment.
Doesn't this mean the BR amendment now has enough seconds?
Uhh, I have lost track. I need to go into the archive ans see
On Sun, 2003-09-28 at 12:06, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Uhh, I have lost track. I need to go into the archive ans see
who has seconded what, unless someone beats me to it.
I based this upon your message here:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200309/msg00036.html
I hereby second the ammendment known as BR3
Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 12:29:40PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
==
4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
4.1. Powers
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 12:29:40PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
==
4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 04:11:35 +0300, Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 04:16:06PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
I propose the following amendment:
- 5.2 The Foundation Documents are the works entitled Debian
- Social Contract and Debian Free Software
On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 04:55, Jochen Voss wrote:
I second the above amendment.
Doesn't this mean the BR amendment now has enough seconds?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 04:33:51AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 04:55, Jochen Voss wrote:
I second the above amendment.
Doesn't this mean the BR amendment now has enough seconds?
I hope so :-)
Jochen
--
http://seehuhn.de/
signature.asc
Description: Digital
Hi,
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 04:55, Jochen Voss wrote:
I second the above amendment.
Doesn't this mean the BR amendment now has enough seconds?
Probably, but we can't proceed until BR3 either has enough seconds, or it's
reasonably clear that it won't get them.
--
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 04:33:51 -0400, Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 04:55, Jochen Voss wrote:
I second the above amendment.
Doesn't this mean the BR amendment now has enough seconds?
Uhh, I have lost track. I need to go into the archive ans see
I hereby second the ammendment known as BR3
Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 12:29:40PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
==
4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
4.1. Powers
Hi folks,
Beginning in 2001, concerns regarding the compatibility of the
GNU Free Documentation License with the Debian Free Software
Guidelines came to the attention of the debian-legal mailing list.
In early 2002, the Free Software Foundation announced that it
would be
14 matches
Mail list logo
