On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 10:06:58PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Xavier Roche [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I fully agree: the firmware is a evil, proprietary code. But it is always
true: the fact that you load it on startup in the remote hardware, or the
fact that it already exists in
Title: Turnkey
ribonucleic aberrant carruthers dew elena football triplett broach equivocal dot embroider lope delphinus emanate grammatic among cricket mcallister truthful
hal roomful upholster seismic contrast corrugate dateline duck launch visionary vow desideratum
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 10:57:59AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I believe that any serious problem here is one that the release
manager created.
It gets pretty boring repeating myself all the
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, that's fine, and is now clearly the case. I can't see why you'd do
anything but expect the procedure to be dropped once the interpretation
it was based on was rendered implausible.
I haven't said anything to the contrary that I can recall; if I
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't know much Dutch history, but afaics, it'd be the equivalent of
the US choosing to ignore the first amendment immediately after enacting
it [...]
Ironically, this is exactly what the United States did. Go look up
the Alien and Sedition Acts on
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That doesn't matter. To date, the policy has always been that a package
must go in contrib if it has a dependency on something in non-free which
has no *current* free implementation.
Yes, that's right, but this refers to dependencies in the formal
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040430 08:25]:
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 10:06:58PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
I don't think this is right. If there is no dependency, the thing
doesn't have to be in contrib.
Remember, a thing goes in contrib because it is only useful with
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
(2004 vote 003) be
CS == Craig Sanders [2004-4-29]
[...]
CS i propose an amendment that deletes everything but clause 1 of this
CS proposal, so that the entire proposal now reads:
CS that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within the
CS General Resolution Editorial Amendments To The Social Contract
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
I second Craig Sanders' resolution
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200404/msg00307.html
which reads:
i propose an amendment that deletes everything but clause 1 of this
proposal, so that the entire proposal now reads:
that the
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 02:31:23PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 11:19:10PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
Abiding the SC is a duty of the whole project, not just of Release
Manager.
So why does the whole project seem shocked and appalled that I'm actually
Thomas writes:
The issue is not about firmware, it's about whether there is changeable
software which we are prevented from changing by licensing restrictions.
Software _that we are distributing_. Real firmware is irrelevant as we do
not and need not distribute it at all: it's part of the
Wouter Verhelst writes:
That doesn't matter. To date, the policy has always been that a package
must go in contrib if it has a dependency on something in non-free which
has no *current* free implementation.
Then all binaries must go in non-free since they depend on the non-free cpu
microcode.
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 09:45:18AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
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
OK, so would the liar and the cad both shut up, please? Take this off
list. We've seen enough to decide for ourselves what your characters
are. Drop it.
(I hate having to maintain a killfile for this list.)
--
Chad Walstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.wookimus.net/
[Bear with me while I figure out this Mail-Followup-To business with
mutt. I am subscribed to the list, so no To|Cc's please.]
Quoting Chad Walstrom:
So, now you feel it is entirely rational to get a Do over? You
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 07:35:02AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Why not ?
Fraternal greetings from the people's republic, darlin! :)Ethics must begin at the top of an organization. It is a leadership issue and the chief executive must set the example.
Looking for cheap high-quality software?
Our site might be just what you need.http://ethmolith.dbsoft.biz
We offer
Title: Turnkey
surreal yeats cinematic pornographer assuage citrate conscious rubric nazism zippy carlyle adulthood coherent bony odyssey deborah mallard lesotho showroom daydream anastigmatic baltic brace cowgirl captivate classmate conferred peridotite reconcile proclaim dreyfuss was
[MY new CVS Emacs seems to have munged th headers, here is a new
version, with a few typographical errors fixed]
Hi,
In order to handle the changes introduced in the GR 2004_003,
I propose we adopt a foundation document that tries to provide
guidance and explanation for the
I second this, hoping it will bring us all back to work, away from the
flamefest.
Manoj Srivastava dijo [Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 03:57:33PM -0500]:
[MY new CVS Emacs seems to have munged th headers, here is a new
version, with a few typographical errors fixed]
Hi,
In order to
Hi,
I second this proposal.
Bye
Cesar Mendoza
http://www.kitiara.org
--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to
the death your right to say it.
--Voltaire
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 03:57:33PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
[MY new CVS Emacs seems to have munged th headers, here
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[MY new CVS Emacs seems to have munged th headers, here is a new
version, with a few typographical errors fixed]
Hi,
In order to handle the changes introduced in the GR 2004_003,
I
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]Organization:srivasta@debian.org wrote:
There is precedence for this gap in ratifying a foundation and
implementing the dictats of that document; as Joey Hess reminded me:
I think that this document needs some serious editing before it is
suitable as any
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 03:57:33PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I hereby propose that we amend the constitution to add to the list of
foundation documents the document attached in this proposal, titled
Transition Guide
I'm also not comfortable with adding verbose documentation for solutions
I second this proposed option for GR 2004_04
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 16:57:45 -0500
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
[This version contains typographical fixes, and a tightening
up of the grammar, of the foundation document. I do not
believe any substantive
[This is a counter proposal to Manoj's I originally posted on
debian-vote. I've substituted Published with Ratified and removed
versions.]
I propose to add the following to the Constitution:
§ 5.1.4. Ratified versions of Foundation Documents shall be formally
associated to specific
Hi,
[This version contains typographical fixes, and a tightening
up of the grammar, of the foundation document. I do not
believe any substantive changes have been made.]
In order to handle the changes introduced in the GR 2004_003,
I propose we adopt a
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 16:55:41 -0500
Chad Walstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 03:57:33PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I hereby propose that we amend the constitution to add to the list of
foundation documents the document attached in this proposal, titled
Transition
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 05:16:57PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
users and the need to make Debian strictly free. As Raul Miller stated:
I must admit that I'm somewhat embarassed to see my name in this context.
Flattered, but... I don't feel comfortable having my name enshrined
in a foundation
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 16:55:41 -0500, Chad Walstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 03:57:33PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I hereby propose that we amend the constitution to add to the list
of foundation documents the document attached in this proposal,
titled Transition
Chad Walstrom dijo [Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 05:17:46PM -0500]:
[This is a counter proposal to Manoj's I originally posted on
debian-vote. I've substituted Published with Ratified and removed
versions.]
I propose to add the following to the Constitution:
§ 5.1.4. Ratified versions of
I second this proposal.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I second this proposal.
quoted
Hi,
[This version contains typographical fixes, and a tightening
up of the grammar, of the foundation document. I do not
believe any substantive changes have been
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You are mistaken. It also applies if a package needs a piece of software
which isn't distributable by Debian, not even in non-free (for a
concrete example, see the java packages that can't be compiled by free
compilers)
Ah, thanks for the correction.
Hi,
On 29 Apr 2004, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
And so the question is why can I not modify these bits? and the
answer is: the author refuses to permit me access to the source and
restricts my copying of the bits.
I fully agree: the firmware is a evil, proprietary code. But it is always
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 12:26:31AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Is it known whether the sarge-ignore status of
#211765: xfree86: material under GLX Public License and SGI Free
Software License B is not DFSG-free
is affected by the current situation? It is not clear from the bug
logs
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 01:41:37PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
No, perhaps you are right. But asking for a reasonable time to
implement the changes in the social contract does not requires
rescinding and restoring the social contract amendments; it could
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 11:07:17AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
In any case, I disliked the old procedure; I thought it was based on
an incorrect interpretation of the Social Contract; so I happily
supported and voted for the GR which amended the Social Contract to
make clear that the
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 11:19:10PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
I do not consider it very strange if for practical reasons some
agreements are not followed up to the letter -- that is done all over
the world. Example: According to Dutch law, it is forbidden to posess
any drugs (Opiumwet
Hi,
Preferring to reply to you instead of Thomas since he insists to provoke
people.
Quoting Chad Walstrom:
Thus I didn't vote.
So, now you feel it is entirely rational to get a Do over? You
Why not ? People do mistakes ... a bunch of volunteers can do collective
mistakes.
weren't
Xavier Roche [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I fully agree: the firmware is a evil, proprietary code. But it is always
true: the fact that you load it on startup in the remote hardware, or the
fact that it already exists in ROM, doesn't change anything. The problem
is then, considering that we
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 10:06:58PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Xavier Roche [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I fully agree: the firmware is a evil, proprietary code. But it is always
true: the fact that you load it on startup in the remote hardware, or the
fact that it already exists in
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 05:46:10PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
it was Anthony Towns in Message-ID:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] that first involved
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - but you wouldn't want to let an irrelevant
little thing like truth get in the way
Title: Turnkey
ribonucleic aberrant carruthers dew elena football triplett broach equivocal dot embroider lope delphinus emanate grammatic among cricket mcallister truthful
hal roomful upholster seismic contrast corrugate dateline duck launch visionary vow desideratum
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 10:57:59AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
I believe that any serious problem here is one that the release
manager created.
It gets pretty boring repeating myself
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Well, that's fine, and is now clearly the case. I can't see why you'd do
anything but expect the procedure to be dropped once the interpretation
it was based on was rendered implausible.
I haven't said anything to the contrary that I can recall; if
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
I don't know much Dutch history, but afaics, it'd be the equivalent of
the US choosing to ignore the first amendment immediately after enacting
it [...]
Ironically, this is exactly what the United States did. Go look up
the Alien and Sedition Acts
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That doesn't matter. To date, the policy has always been that a package
must go in contrib if it has a dependency on something in non-free which
has no *current* free implementation.
Yes, that's right, but this refers to dependencies in the formal
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
(2004 vote 003) be
CS == Craig Sanders [2004-4-29]
[...]
CS i propose an amendment that deletes everything but clause 1 of this
CS proposal, so that the entire proposal now reads:
CS that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within the
CS General Resolution Editorial Amendments To The Social Contract
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 02:31:23PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 11:19:10PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
Abiding the SC is a duty of the whole project, not just of Release
Manager.
So why does the whole project seem shocked and appalled that I'm actually
Thomas writes:
The issue is not about firmware, it's about whether there is changeable
software which we are prevented from changing by licensing restrictions.
Software _that we are distributing_. Real firmware is irrelevant as we do
not and need not distribute it at all: it's part of the
Wouter Verhelst writes:
That doesn't matter. To date, the policy has always been that a package
must go in contrib if it has a dependency on something in non-free which
has no *current* free implementation.
Then all binaries must go in non-free since they depend on the non-free cpu
microcode.
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 09:45:18AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
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
OK, so would the liar and the cad both shut up, please? Take this off
list. We've seen enough to decide for ourselves what your characters
are. Drop it.
(I hate having to maintain a killfile for this list.)
--
Chad Walstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.wookimus.net/
[Bear with me while I figure out this Mail-Followup-To business with
mutt. I am subscribed to the list, so no To|Cc's please.]
Quoting Chad Walstrom:
So, now you feel it is entirely rational to get a Do over? You
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 07:35:02AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Why not ?
Title: Turnkey
surreal yeats cinematic pornographer assuage citrate conscious rubric nazism zippy carlyle adulthood coherent bony odyssey deborah mallard lesotho showroom daydream anastigmatic baltic brace cowgirl captivate classmate conferred peridotite reconcile proclaim dreyfuss was
[MY new CVS Emacs seems to have munged th headers, here is a new
version, with a few typographical errors fixed]
Hi,
In order to handle the changes introduced in the GR 2004_003,
I propose we adopt a foundation document that tries to provide
guidance and explanation for the
I second this, hoping it will bring us all back to work, away from the
flamefest.
Manoj Srivastava dijo [Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 03:57:33PM -0500]:
[MY new CVS Emacs seems to have munged th headers, here is a new
version, with a few typographical errors fixed]
Hi,
In order to
Hi,
I second this proposal.
Bye
Cesar Mendoza
http://www.kitiara.org
--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to
the death your right to say it.
--Voltaire
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 03:57:33PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
[MY new CVS Emacs seems to have munged th headers, here
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[MY new CVS Emacs seems to have munged th headers, here is a new
version, with a few typographical errors fixed]
Hi,
In order to handle the changes introduced in the GR 2004_003,
I
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]Organization:srivasta@debian.org wrote:
There is precedence for this gap in ratifying a foundation and
implementing the dictats of that document; as Joey Hess reminded me:
I think that this document needs some serious editing before it is
suitable as any
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 03:57:33PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I hereby propose that we amend the constitution to add to the list of
foundation documents the document attached in this proposal, titled
Transition Guide
I'm also not comfortable with adding verbose documentation for solutions
[This is a counter proposal to Manoj's I originally posted on
debian-vote. I've substituted Published with Ratified and removed
versions.]
I propose to add the following to the Constitution:
§ 5.1.4. Ratified versions of Foundation Documents shall be formally
associated to specific
Hi,
[This version contains typographical fixes, and a tightening
up of the grammar, of the foundation document. I do not
believe any substantive changes have been made.]
In order to handle the changes introduced in the GR 2004_003,
I propose we adopt a
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 16:55:41 -0500
Chad Walstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 03:57:33PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I hereby propose that we amend the constitution to add to the list of
foundation documents the document attached in this proposal, titled
Transition
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 06:17:40PM -0400, David B Harris wrote:
The wordy proposal, while wordy, covers everything - and it also
provides rationale and context for the user.
Providing context for the user is not the job of FD's or the
Constitution, it is the job of supplementary documentation,
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 04:55:41PM -0500, Chad Walstrom wrote:
I'm also not comfortable with adding verbose documentation for solutions
that can be succinctly implemented.
What about actually saying in the constitution what the meaning of the
Social Contract is? Also, DFSG is according to the
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 05:16:57PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
users and the need to make Debian strictly free. As Raul Miller stated:
I must admit that I'm somewhat embarassed to see my name in this context.
Flattered, but... I don't feel comfortable having my name enshrined
in a foundation
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 16:55:41 -0500, Chad Walstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 03:57:33PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I hereby propose that we amend the constitution to add to the list
of foundation documents the document attached in this proposal,
titled Transition
Chad Walstrom dijo [Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 05:17:46PM -0500]:
[This is a counter proposal to Manoj's I originally posted on
debian-vote. I've substituted Published with Ratified and removed
versions.]
I propose to add the following to the Constitution:
§ 5.1.4. Ratified versions of
I second this proposal.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I second this proposal.
quoted
Hi,
[This version contains typographical fixes, and a tightening
up of the grammar, of the foundation document. I do not
believe any substantive changes have been
71 matches
Mail list logo
