On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 02:50:19PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 10:07:18PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
C. Reaffirms its continued support of users whose hardware (or
software) requires works which are not freely
On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 06:17:15PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
perhaps we should, independend of current GRs, consider how to change
the GR procedure so that it doesn't happen to be as painful as it is
now.
Or perhaps we should make it harder/more painful to discourage
time-wasters. :)
All
== BEGIN PROPOSAL =
The Free Software movement is about enabling users to modify the works
that they use on their computer; about giving users the same
information that copyright holders and upstream developers have. As
such, a critical part of
Hi,
Anthony Towns ends up his announce[1] about dunc-tank.org with these
two paragraphs:
The first article[2] on the topic's already been
published; with one somewhat inaccuracy - this is not a
Debian project, and is being specifically handled outside
of Debian to both ensure
Seconded.
Regards,
Joey
Denis Barbier wrote:
Hi,
Anthony Towns ends up his announce[1] about dunc-tank.org with these
two paragraphs:
The first article[2] on the topic's already been
published; with one somewhat inaccuracy - this is not a
Debian project, and is
Denis Barbier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
But we, Debian developers, can make this confusion vanish, and I
would like to propose that we answer to the valid question quoted
in the second paragraph above by recalling our Project Leader, as
allowed by our Constitution (section 4.1.1) and am
Denis,
Anthony did his best to handle this cleanly and openly, from the very
start. With his new funding project, he tried drawing a separation
which I consider similar to the one I draw between my personal and my
professional life. This separation is never perfect.
The DPL is
But we, Debian developers, can make this confusion vanish, and I
would like to propose that we answer to the valid question quoted
in the second paragraph above by recalling our Project Leader, as
allowed by our Constitution (section 4.1.1) and am seeking seconds
for this proposal.
Seconded.
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 07:43:22PM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
But we, Debian developers, can make this confusion vanish, and I
would like to propose that we answer to the valid question quoted
in the second paragraph above by recalling our Project Leader, as
allowed by our Constitution
On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 15:00 -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
But we, Debian developers, can make this confusion vanish, and I
would like to propose that we answer to the valid question quoted
in the second paragraph above by recalling our Project Leader, as
allowed by our Constitution (section
also sprach Denis Barbier [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.09.20.1943 +0200]:
But we, Debian developers, can make this confusion vanish, and
I would like to propose that we answer to the valid question
quoted in the second paragraph above by recalling our Project
Leader, as allowed by our Constitution
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I second the below proposal.
== BEGIN PROPOSAL =
The Free Software movement is about enabling users to modify the works
that they use on their computer; about giving users the same
information that
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 16:13:41 +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [...]
And people tell me I am guilty of egregious abuse of power?
Bla.
This is just a bunch of concerned developers very slowly crafting a
resolution. I am sure I
quote who=Manoj Srivastava date=Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 10:09:04AM -0500
Due to a loop hole in the constitution, any group of 6 Debian
developers can delay any general resolution indefinitely by putting
up their own amendment, and every 6 days, making substantiative
changes in their
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 15:21:40 -0400, Benj Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
quote who=Manoj Srivastava date=Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 10:09:04AM
-0500
The project should decide how it wants to handle filibustering, if
it feels like doing anything about it, of course.
It seems like there are
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 07:43:22PM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
But we, Debian developers, can make this confusion vanish, and I
This is outlandish and insulting. That a Debian developer should be
held responsible every time someone in the press writes something
inaccurate is terribly wrong.
I
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 08:10:05PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
Seconded.
I am shocked at the support that this is seeing, and I wonder if people
are letting their feelings about this particular project cloud their
judgement about recalling a DPL?
Remember what we are saying here -- that
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 03:41:41PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
What's worse, your complaint seems to be that AJ told someone what he
was doing privately. Debian should not be seeking to restrict the
speech of its developers or leadership.
Bah, this is in line with what has been happening in
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 03:44:19PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 08:10:05PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
Seconded.
I am shocked at the support that this is seeing, and I wonder if people
are letting their feelings about this particular project cloud their
judgement
[Sven Luther]
and i am under control of Frans over any post i make if i ever want
to go back to working on d-i as i did before, and everyone found that
normal behaviour, so what do you expect ?
OH NO YOU DON'T.
This thread is _not_ about you, it is _not_ about Frans Pop, and it is
_not_
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 10:59:53PM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
Debian to decide.
This vote is in my opinion the best way to answer this question.
It does nothing of the kind. You're saying that you're not even going
to give him the chance. You can't answer the question without making
the
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 04:05:26PM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
[Sven Luther]
and i am under control of Frans over any post i make if i ever want
to go back to working on d-i as i did before, and everyone found that
normal behaviour, so what do you expect ?
OH NO YOU DON'T.
Hehe, you
Le mercredi 20 septembre 2006 à 19:43 +0200, Denis Barbier a écrit :
But we, Debian developers, can make this confusion vanish, and I
would like to propose that we answer to the valid question quoted
in the second paragraph above by recalling our Project Leader, as
allowed by our Constitution
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 07:43:22PM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
Anthony Towns ends up his announce[1] about dunc-tank.org with these
two paragraphs:
A question that has been raised is whether the
organisation can be sufficiently outside of Debian when
the DPL is intimately
On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 10:15:28PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
I don't think it is too much to ask that the proposers and/or seconders of
General Resolutions create and maintain wiki pages, for example, when their
initiatives demand a lot of background material to appropriately inform and
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 04:09:34PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 10:59:53PM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
Debian to decide.
This vote is in my opinion the best way to answer this question.
It does nothing of the kind. You're saying that you're not even going
to
On Tuesday 12 September 2006 07:38, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 20:39:35 -0700, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 01:47:18AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
(c) Following the release of etch, the Debian Project Leader shall:
i. ensure that the Debian
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 12:05:39AM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
Again, the question is: is this organisation sufficiently outside
of Debian when the DPL is intimately involved. In my opinion, the
answer is obviously no, meaning that this quarantine will not work
and as a result may badly harm
This one time, at band camp, Denis Barbier said:
Again, the question is: is this organisation sufficiently outside
of Debian when the DPL is intimately involved. In my opinion, the
answer is obviously no, meaning that this quarantine will not work
and as a result may badly harm the project.
On Tuesday 12 September 2006 13:04, MJ Ray wrote:
Frans Pop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
to the removal from the distribution (main) of software that could be
Please, drop the scare quotes on software.
No, I don't think so. There are people who feel that everything that is not
hardware is
seconded
Le mer 20 septembre 2006 19:43, Denis Barbier a écrit :
Hi,
Anthony Towns ends up his announce[1] about dunc-tank.org with these
two paragraphs:
The first article[2] on the topic's already been
published; with one somewhat inaccuracy - this is not a
Debian project,
On Monday 18 September 2006 16:09, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
The project acknowledges that a lot of progress has been made with
regard to the removal from the distribution (main) of software that
could be considered non-free given the current wording of the Social
Contract.
You mean
Le mer 20 septembre 2006 19:43, Denis Barbier a écrit :
The article's title mentioned in the first paragraph is: Debian
experiments with funding group to release 'etch' on time. Even
if Anthony Towns and other Dunc-tankers claim that their project
is not affiliated to Debian, external people
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 01:28:26 -0700, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 10:15:28PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
I don't think it is too much to ask that the proposers and/or
seconders of General Resolutions create and maintain wiki pages,
for example, when their
Hi,
Under the following sections of the constitution:
,
| 4.1. Powers
| 5. Proposals, sponsors, amendments, calls for votes and other
|formal actions are made by announcement on a publicly-readable
|electronic mailing list designated by the Project Leader's
|
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 02:26:19AM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
The debate has been launched on -private, but it's clear to everyone
that we were very far from a consensus[2]. So, instead of *beeing
consistent* with the *consensus* of the opinions, a so called external
structure has
Manoj Srivastava writes (Canonical list of proposal text):
Could I ask the proposers to submit formated renditions of the
proposal for inclusion on the web page? Eeew, what abuse of
power. There is nothing in the constitution that allows the secretary
to impose such additional
Hi.
I'll admit that I've been rather out of the loop of late, but I do try
to at least research GRs and make as informed of a decision as I can.
I was unable to find any legal review of the proposed changes to the
constitution.
The idea of a project associated with a single non-profit for
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Seems like I'm damned if I do, and damned if I don't.
It seems to me as if what happened was:
You thought the preamble was rationale and not part of the
resolution proper; but the proposer said no, that was an important
part of the resolution
Manoj Srivastava writes (Filibustering general resolutions):
Due to a loop hole in the constitution, any group of 6 Debian
developers can delay any general resolution indefinitely by putting
up their own amendment, and every 6 days, making substantiative
changes in their amendment
Russ Allbery writes (Re: The Sourceless software in the kernel source GR):
I don't really know how best to help with the underlying problem here.
Part of the problem is that there are still people who think that we
can rely on procedures to protect us absolutely from people. This is
obviously
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 18:39:01 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Seems like I'm damned if I do, and damned if I don't.
It seems to me as if what happened was:
You thought the preamble was rationale and not part of the
resolution
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 12:07:58 +0100, Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Manoj Srivastava writes (Filibustering general resolutions):
Due to a loop hole in the constitution, any group of 6 Debian
developers can delay any general resolution indefinitely by putting
up their own amendment, and
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 12:17:18 +0100, Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Manoj Srivastava writes (Canonical list of proposal text):
Could I ask the proposers to submit formated renditions of the
proposal for inclusion on the web page? Eeew, what abuse of
power. There is nothing in the
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What is an issue is that a sloppy proposal mail may have
mislead the sponsors to believe that a preamble was an introductory
section, or vice versa. Hard to know unless the proposors and ponsors
are clear about their intent.
Right, so
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 21:56:25 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What is an issue is that a sloppy proposal mail may have mislead
the sponsors to believe that a preamble was an introductory
section, or vice versa. Hard to know unless
46 matches
Mail list logo
