On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 11:43:05AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 20:22:27 +1000, Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Perhaps for our next GR, we can contemplate whether it's appropriate
that less than 20% of the developers is enough to change one of our
most
Hale,
Govenment don't want me to sell
UndergroundCD !Check Your spouse and staff
Investigate Your Own CREDIT-HISTORY
hacking someone PC!
Disappear in your city
bannedcd2004
http://www.9003hosting.com/cd/
redshank,the lions muzzles.
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 04:20:53AM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
But, as you might have noticed, the rage on debian-devel did _not_ start
when the result of the vote was announced. Rather, it was started
because of the implications Anthony Towns drew of the result of the
vote. I
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 19:53:16 -0600, Kevin Rosenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Steve Langasek wrote:
[snip] discussion period ASAP. I am looking for seconds for this
proposal, or barring that, amendments.
I seconded the proposal.
Seconds need to be signed.
manoj
--
NOBODY
I will second this proposal.
Javier Fernandez-Sanguino
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 08:41:35PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
The Debian Project,
affirming its committment to principles of freeness for all works it
distributes,
but recognizing that changing the Social Contract today would have
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi
Please refer to the following messages, in which a General
resolution was proposed, and seconded:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200404/msg00186.html
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 10:47:04PM -0400, Duncan Findlay wrote:
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 08:41:35PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
The Debian Project,
affirming its committment to principles of freeness for all works it
distributes,
but recognizing that changing the Social Contract
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 12:55:20AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
But if there are any pragamatists who haven't left in disgust, you
should speak out, lest the Knights Lunar demonstrate that they really
are all that's left of Debian developer community.
Ted, don't forget that the pragmatists will
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 08:41:35PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
Hi,
Since:
1. The changes in the social contract where editorial, and didn't
change its meening, but they only clarified it for those who beleived that
debian distributed non-software
2. It was already decided to do something on
Steve Langasek wrote:
affirming its committment 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,
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 04:02:47PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
Of course you're right and everybody should have read the GR that you
did indeed send to d-d-a three times. However you must concede that some
people ignored the issue based on the subject of the CFV message alone,
and that some
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 08:41:35PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
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;
2. that these amendments, which have already been
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 05:51:03PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 22:56:43 +0100, Mark Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 10:09:06PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
I don't believe that the GR had a misleading title. It were
editorial changes after
Quoting Marc Haber [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
You are also ignoring the fact that most non-native English speaking
DDs might be able to read and write technical English very well, but
nevertheless might have difficulties in understanding all implications
of a screenful of legalese.
Yes, we should
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 10:50:35AM +0200, W. Borgert wrote:
Quoting Marc Haber [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
You are also ignoring the fact that most non-native English speaking
DDs might be able to read and write technical English very well, but
nevertheless might have difficulties in understanding
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 10:03:36AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
If you believe that not all of the freedoms in the Debian Free
SoftwareGuidelines are important for non-programs such as
documentation, artwork, fonts or other data, you should say so.
They may be important, but are they serious?
Quoting Marc Haber [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 10:50:35AM +0200, W. Borgert wrote:
Yes, we should have all legal stuff, like GRs, first translated in DDs
native languages first. And checked by a certified, sworn translator.
Otherwise people like me are more or less excluded
Raul Miller wrote:
Do you have some proprosal to make on how you think this issue should
be resolved?
Well, I do believe that non-program software should be as free as
program software, so I'd go the way Anthony described to resolve
this issue: i.e. help Nathanael to extract firmware blobs and
* Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040428 12:40]:
Raul Miller wrote:
Do you have some proprosal to make on how you think this issue should
be resolved?
Well, I do believe that non-program software should be as free as
program software, so I'd go the way Anthony described to resolve
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 04:02:47PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 11:43:05AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 20:22:27 +1000, Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Perhaps for our next GR, we can contemplate whether it's appropriate
that less than
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 01:08:05PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 04:02:47PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
No, you need 46 people and only three quarters of them need agree.
That is less than 4% of our developer community.
(My mistake; each valid option must have at
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 10:36:05PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
That's a mischaracterisation. You also need *all* the other developers
to be absent or apathetic.
Apparently not difficult to arrange, if you dress it up as something
mundane and technical in a language foreign to many of our
I second this amended GR. While I understand Steve's concern, I think
that the actual result of sarge not making the September deadline will
be a second GR to push the deadline back again. I'd rather just tie the
changes in wording to Sarge's release and be done with it.
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 02:15:00PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
Andreas Barth wrote:
* Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040428 12:40]:
Raul Miller wrote:
Do you have some proprosal to make on how you think this issue should
be resolved?
Well, I do believe that non-program
Hi Duncan!
You wrote:
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 08:41:35PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
The Debian Project,
affirming its committment to principles of freeness for all works it
distributes,
but recognizing that changing the Social Contract today would have grave
consequences for
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 10:43:15AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
I am not particularly interested in providing a comprehensive list of
ballot options to cover all possible views of DDs, here.
You are not interested in anything besides back me or smack me?
I'm interested in getting sarge's release
On Wed, 2004-04-28 at 10:43 +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
So what? I expect you to reject amendments and refuse to incorporate
them, given your stated view.
Sorry, but 6 developers think this is a perfectly fine proposal as
written and want to see it to a vote, as written.
Thanks.
--
Scott Dier
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 03:28:33 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
In order to be counted, seconds have to be signed.
Sorry, my gpg signature wasn't sent apparently.
I also second the Steve Langasek's proposal, with Duncan Findlay's amendment.
pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 22:15:48 +1000, Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Of course you're right and everybody should have read the GR that
you did indeed send to d-d-a three times. However you must
concede that some people ignored the issue based on the subject
of the CFV message
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 01:50:31AM -0500, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi
Please refer to the following messages, in which a General
resolution was proposed, and seconded:
The Debian Project,
* Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040428 15:10]:
Andreas Barth wrote:
* Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040428 12:40]:
Raul Miller wrote:
Do you have some proprosal to make on how you think this issue should
be resolved?
Well, I do believe that non-program software should
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 09:53:04AM -0400, Buddha Buck wrote:
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
[bad stuff]
I don't like Manoj's tone in this thread. It's harsh, accusatory, and
somewhat rude. It seems like he is reacting defensively, as if he feels
people are blaming him for the results they don't
On 2004-04-28 14:43:20 +0100 Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 10:43:15AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
I am not particularly interested in providing a comprehensive list
of
ballot options to cover all possible views of DDs, here.
You are not interested in anything besides
On 2004-04-28 14:47:31 +0100 Scott Dier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2004-04-28 at 10:43 +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
So what? I expect you to reject amendments and refuse to incorporate
them,
given your stated view.
Sorry, but 6 developers think this is a perfectly fine proposal as
written and
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:08:39 +0200, Xavier Roche [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 03:28:33 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
In order to be counted, seconds have to be signed.
Sorry, my gpg signature wasn't sent apparently.
I also second the Steve Langasek's proposal, with Duncan
* Buddha Buck ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040428 16:55]:
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
Good for you. But admit that some people disagree, at least.
Perhaps next time the subject of the CFV could make no comment on the
proposal at all. Call it SC changes, rather than SC editorial
changes. The secretary's
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 09:01:34AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
If people do not like the title selected by the proposer, they should
speak up _before_ the fact; and suggest alternatiuves, and not rail
against the secretary and, without proof, accuse him of substituting
his opinion in
Guido Trotter writes:
This may be bad, since we've just changed the SC, and we actually don't
want to change it back. (It may be bad publicity too)
Can't we have a GR that simply overrules aj's decision about his personal
interpretation of the SC (according to the constitution § 4.1.3) and
On Wed, 2004-04-28 at 15:57 +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
We already knew that the minority in the last vote was far larger than
6, so this is unsurprising. Crossing the required number of seconds is
part of the process and should not be the end of development. The
proposer could still be
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 03:54:30PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-04-28 14:43:20 +0100 Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 10:43:15AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
I am not particularly interested in providing a comprehensive list
of
ballot options to cover all possible
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 04:12:30PM +0200, Guido Trotter wrote:
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;
2. that these amendments, which have already been
Theodore Ts'o [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Personally, I'm still trying to decide myself what is going to happen
with Debian. Is it a bunch of fanatics who are more interested in
philosophy than technology, in which case it is an open question
whether the next release of Debian stable will
Marc Haber [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You are also ignoring the fact that most non-native English speaking
DDs might be able to read and write technical English very well, but
nevertheless might have difficulties in understanding all implications
of a screenful of legalese.
The Social
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 00:49:58 +1000, Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 09:53:04AM -0400, Buddha Buck wrote:
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
[bad stuff]
I don't like Manoj's tone in this thread. It's harsh, accusatory,
and somewhat rude. It seems like he is reacting
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:59:00 +0100, Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Points 1. and 2. above are removed and replaced with:
1. that the following text be appended to the first clause of the
Social Contract:
We apologize that the current state of some of our documentation
Colin,
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 04:59:00PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
While I would certainly prefer this to further discussion, I would
like to propose the following amendment. (Alert eyes will note that it's
Option C from Jeroen's post yesterday; I drafted the text that forms the
basis of
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 04:59:00PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
I feel that the most honest approach is to note in the Social Contract
itself that we apologize for not living up to those principles just
yet.
Such an apology is not necessary language for the Social Contract.
Updating the DFSG web
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 11:48:30AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:59:00 +0100, Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
1. that the following text be appended to the first clause of the
Social Contract:
We apologize that the current state of some of our
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 12:07:25PM -0500, Chad Walstrom wrote:
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 04:59:00PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
I feel that the most honest approach is to note in the Social Contract
itself that we apologize for not living up to those principles just
yet.
Such an apology is
Guido Trotter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 08:41:35PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
This GR actually changes the SC, and thus is done according to the
constitution § 4.1.5 and requires 3:1 majority to pass...
This may be bad, since we've just changed the SC, and we
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 06:10:24PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
I propose this amendment replacing my previous one:
Points 1. and 2. above are removed and replaced with:
1. that the following text be appended to the first clause of the
Social Contract:
We apologize that the
Title: Re: Re: Re: General Resolution: Handling of the non-free section: proposedBallot
I found the replies to my idea very instructive.
I would like to make my idea more clear:
- I believe that the wide choice of packages is one point of strength of Debian
- I think that the general
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 04:55:29AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 08:41:35PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
1. that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within the
General Resolution Editorial Amendments To The Social Contract
(2004 vote 003) be
[Amendment]
Developers,
On Wed, 2004-04-28 at 18:22, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
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
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 06:58:49PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
Well, first off: Your appended text and the revised first clause don't
match identically. (binary-only firmware is only in the former, 3.1
(codenamed sarge) only in the latter, for example).
But more to the point: While I see
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 04:59:00PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 08:41:35PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
1. that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within the
General Resolution Editorial Amendments To The Social Contract
(2004 vote 003) be
Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The ballot is now quite full, once it is time for seconds (not yet, let's
first discuss), maybe some options will fail to get five seconds, so they are
dropped. If all get enough seconds, well, this is what the voting system is
designed to
* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040428 18:25]:
I also think that, whichever way the GR is worded, it warrants the 3:1
supermajority requirement because it does impact our implementation of
the foundation documents.
Definitly.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I propose this amendment replacing my previous one:
Points 1. and 2. above are removed and replaced with:
1. that the following text be appended to the first clause of the
Social Contract:
(Shuffling around the text due to l33t rhetorical abilities...)
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 06:49:32PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 06:58:49PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
Thus, I would prefer a more general GR which states roughly the
following:
Changes to the Social
* Colin Watson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040428 18:25]:
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;
2. that these amendments, which have
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 12:44:49PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
I've cc:ed our stable release manager, ftp-masters, and the security
team, in the hopes that they'll offer some insight into their
understanding of their own responsibilities for sarge if this GR passes.
My assumption would be
Hi,
On Wed, 2004-04-28 at 19:30, Roland Stigge wrote:
[Amendment]
Sorry, a duplicate. :(
Please rather support Duncan Findlay's Amendment at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200404/msg00195.html
Thanks and apologies.
bye,
Roland
signature.asc
Description: This is a
* Andreas Barth ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040428 20:19]:
* Colin Watson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040428 18:25]:
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
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 10:47:04PM -0400, Duncan Findlay wrote:
I wish to propose the following amendment:
That point 2. above be changed to read:
2. that these amendments, which have already been ratified by the
Debian Project, will be reinstated immediately after the release of
the
I will second this proposal also.
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 08:41:35PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
The Debian Project,
affirming its committment to principles of freeness for all works it
distributes,
but recognizing that changing the Social Contract today would have grave
consequences
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 06:41:05PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The ballot is now quite full, once it is time for seconds (not yet, let's
first discuss), maybe some options will fail to get five seconds, so they are
dropped. If all get enough
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 11:20:50AM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 12:44:49PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
I've cc:ed our stable release manager, ftp-masters, and the security
team, in the hopes that they'll offer some insight into their
understanding of their own
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 11:04:32AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Hi,
Let me see if I understand correctly:
Debian revises its SC to remove an ambiguity. The release manager
applies the new terms to the next major release of Debian. People
disagree with that, and instead want to override
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 09:07:02PM +0200, Guido Trotter wrote:
Since, as others have pointed out, woody from the clarified SC point of
view is no better than sarge, delaying sarge itself to make it perfect
woudn't make any justice to our users.
It's quite better if we actually release sarge
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 01:56:40PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 11:20:50AM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 12:44:49PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
I've cc:ed our stable release manager, ftp-masters, and the security
team, in the hopes that
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 08:16:48PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 09:07:02PM +0200, Guido Trotter wrote:
Since, as others have pointed out, woody from the clarified SC point of
view is no better than sarge, delaying sarge itself to make it perfect
woudn't make any
This one time, at band camp, Debian Project Secretary said:
Hi
Text: The actual text of the GR is:
[...]
1. that the amendments to the Social Contract contained
within the General Resolution `Editorial Amendments
To The Social Contract'
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 10:56:34AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
Hi,
I don't believe I have the moral authority to tell aj that he's wrong to
follow the Social Contract more strictly than I would. Do you?
Well... It wouldn't be you it would be the developer body, by way of
general
Hi Colin!
You wrote:
I propose this amendment replacing my previous one:
Points 1. and 2. above are removed and replaced with:
1. that the following text be appended to the first clause of the
Social Contract:
We apologize that the current state of some of our documentation
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 06:10:24PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
Hi,
I second this amendment.
Guido Trotter
I propose this amendment replacing my previous one:
Points 1. and 2. above are removed and replaced with:
1. that the following text be appended to the first clause of the
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 06:10:24PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
...
I propose this amendment replacing my previous one:
Points 1. and 2. above are removed and replaced with:
1. that the following text be appended to the first clause of the
Social Contract:
We apologize that the
Theodore Ts'o [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Actually, this may be useful. If this inspires the pragmatists to go
make a Debian Useful variant that actually has documentation,
firmware, fonts, etc. then the fringe fanatics that want to spend all
of their time arguing over the Social Contract can
Scott Dier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm going to see how Steve Langasek's proposal fares. If it doesn't
fare well after a vote (or appears to not fare well) I'm going to start
thinking seriously about coming up with a 'custom debian distribution'
based on a subset of packages in testing.
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 05:43:37PM +0200, Frank Kster wrote:
Hi,
See Jeroen's posting on -devel, -vote and -release, Message-ID
[EMAIL PROTECTED]. He has proposed exactly that.
Well, he has proposed six different options... I was vouching for a simple
GR with only one of them... Maybe it
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 20:19:58 +0200, Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I second hereby your proposals, without or with the small changes I
proposed above (or that others are going to propose).
You forgot a sig.
manoj
--
Know Thy User.
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Roland Stigge wrote:
Since the sarge release is near, I fully understand the reasoning that
leads to a deferral of the 2004.003 GR. But considering that the
official roadmap of the next Debian release is already deferred by
nearly 5 months now and considering the RC bug count and the d-i
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Umm. I'm confused. These are two distinct options. Did you
mean to second Steve Langasek's proposal? Or Duncan Findlay's
amendment.? Or both?
Both, despite Steve rejected the amendment.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 08:16:48PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
Hi,
I initially felt this way and tried making this argument to Anthony on
IRC, but he wasn't having any of it: as I understand it (not wishing to
put words into his mouth), he feels that making a new release knowing
that it
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 05:51:03PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 22:56:43 +0100, Mark Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 10:09:06PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
I don't believe that the GR had a misleading title. It were
editorial changes after
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 09:25:16PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 08:16:48PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 09:07:02PM +0200, Guido Trotter wrote:
Since, as others have pointed out, woody from the clarified SC point of
view is no better than sarge,
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 06:10:24PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
I propose this amendment replacing my previous one:
Points 1. and 2. above are removed and replaced with:
1. that the following text be appended to the first clause of the
Social Contract:
We apologize that the
Buddha Buck's proposal fails several important goals.
It seems like a big sell-out, first of all. The list of things it
makes exceptions for is, well, exactly the list of things that are
problematic. It tries to simply carve out exceptions for any case
where people might want one, without
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
i propose an amendment that deletes everything but clause 1 of this proposal,
so that the entire proposal now reads:
that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within the
General Resolution Editorial Amendments To The Social Contract
Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Florian Weimer wrote:
Jochen Voss [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You should not be. Debian is about freedom, so we
should struggle to not distribute non-free items.
Debian is the distribution that distributes the largest chunk of
non-free software.
On 2004-04-28 23:19:40 +0100 Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Documentation and other written materials that are not programs are
not required to meet guideline 3 [Derived works] fully.
The problems with making a distinction of not programs has been
covered on -legal in the past. I
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 05:19:08PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
i propose an amendment that deletes everything but clause 1 of this proposal,
so that the entire proposal now reads:
that the amendments to the Social Contract contained
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 04:05:24AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-04-28 03:47:04 +0100 Duncan Findlay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2. that these amendments, which have already been ratified by the
Debian Project, will be reinstated immediately after the release of
the next stable version of
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 09:45:18AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 08:41:35PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
The Debian Project,
affirming its committment to principles of freeness for all works it
distributes,
but recognizing that changing the Social Contract today
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
in this particular case, 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
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 10:09:36PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 09:45:18AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 08:41:35PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
The Debian Project,
affirming its committment to principles of freeness for all works it
I'm disappointed in myself, that I didn't recognize the need for
grandfathering in the social contract changes. I should know better.
[I'm also disappointed that I didn't manage to get near my debian key
signing machine during the part of the voting period when I'd made up my
mind about how I
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
either the recently changed wording of the SC is good correct, in which
case the principled thing to do is to follow it without exception, or it
is not correct, in which case it should be discarded.
Or, it's a good idea as an ultimate goal, but we
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 08:58:02PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Since you have shown yourself to be an unprincipled cad, the notion of
you lecturing decent people about ethics is ironic in the extreme.
eat shit and die, you worthless low-life verminous bag of pus
craig
--
craig sanders
Quoting Craig Sanders:
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 08:41:35PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
The Debian Project,
affirming its committment to principles of freeness for all works it
distributes,
but recognizing that changing the Social Contract today would have grave
consequences for
1 - 100 of 217 matches
Mail list logo
