Hi,
Is it just me or is that web page completely broken?
It lists Proposer, and then Amendment Proposer, and then Seconds.
Which seconds are those, to the first or the second part?
Then finally we get Text. Wow, it took only three PgDns to get to the actual
subject matter :P :(
And then after
On Sat, May 03, 2008 at 10:29:03AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
So, this seems to indicate that the way to add new people to the release
team isn't an issue. It however indicates also that there must be a way
how the DPL can change a team in case it isn't working anymore, and e.g.
add
On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 11:51:53AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
Why not making it the other way, allowing the DPL to remove people if he
wants? So teams can expand themselfs (like the release team regularly
does), but the DPL can still make sure that no unwanted people are
delegated there.
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 11:45:19PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Thu, 1 May 2008 03:28:48 +0200, Frans Pop [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
And you think a little GR telling DPL's go ahead -- you can do it!
[...]
However, feel free to go ahead with make-work; we do need to fill up
the vote
On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 09:45:08AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I think you are lending credence to Clint's argument about
cronyism and wholescale flouting of the constitution here. At first
blush, this does seem like a failure of the DPL's in question to act.
Now, I
On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 11:31:52PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
So, this seems to indicate that the way to add new people to the release
team isn't an issue. It however indicates also that there must be a way
how the DPL can change a team in case it isn't working anymore, and e.g.
add new
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 11:54:13PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
What bothers me about all this is that we had a nicely detaled
document that spells out who has what rights, and it seems fairly
clear to me that all powers in Debian stem from the powers laid down
there; but that nicely
On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 02:05:08PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 08:15:42PM +0200, Josip Rodin a écrit :
* Infrastructure teams are encouraged to adapt their sizes to their
workloads,
to ensure that they don't block or slow down the work of other Debian
On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 07:45:10AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
Josip Rodin wrote:
Anyway, I'd agree to stripping down the detailed procedure, but you still
Sorry for not replying to this thread before.
IMO it is definitely worthwhile to clarify the role of core teams within the
project
On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 11:49:35PM +0100, Stephen Gran wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Josip Rodin said:
the developers never made or overrode their decision (4.1.3)
http://www.debian.org/vote/2007/vote_002
Oh, okay, true. That's one. Did I miss any others? :)
--
2. That which
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 12:55:29PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
The main goal of my proposal is to allow people to choose between (A)
and (B) explicitely.
OK, I was actually hoping for that myself, I think I actually voiced that at
one point last year :)
Hmm. In the last few weeks, we've
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 10:02:24AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I am of the camp that believe that the only power people have in any
capacity in Debian flows from the constitution; which means either the
powers listed for developers, or as delegates of the DPL. Recent
delegation
On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 08:24:25PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Debian developers acknowledge the following:
* The Debian Project infrastructure is run by people who volunteer their
time and knowledge in a good-faith effort to help the Debian Project.
* The practice of existing
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 02:14:39PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
You state the problem yourself - the *current* DPL(s) are doing
*something*, but we don't actually know much about it, or if any of it
will happen again, or if the next different DPL and his inaction will
mark the start of
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 08:42:59PM +0100, Clint Adams wrote:
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 09:40:31PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
I think that it's going to make a difference, because it will eliminate
the notion that there are grey areas, which has historically obstructed
progress - no leader
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 05:21:41PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 23:10:38 +0200, Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 08:42:59PM +0100, Clint Adams wrote:
Why are we electing people like that?!
Because by default we elect nice people, who avoid
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 05:27:56PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
What bothers me about all this is that we had a nicely detaled document
that spells out who has what rights, and it seems fairly clear to me that
all powers in Debian stem from the powers laid down there; but that
nicely
On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 08:24:25PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
I'm still not convinced that we need all that bureaucracy. Here is a
draft amemdment. If we vote on both your proposal and this admendment,
could you tell me why I should rank your proposal higher than the
amendment?
Apparently
Hi,
This originates from the debian-project mailing list discussions at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2007/06/msg00020.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2007/10/msg00064.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2007/10/msg00142.html
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 10:20:52PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
Do you really think we should change an old and overall good format?
It's not a format, it's an introductory text. There is no negative aspect
in making it a bit more logical and user-friendly, why are you making change
sound like a
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 10:58:34PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
You can express your opinions on this list without any problem, though
your opinion should not be expressed in an official reminder to vote as
that can be interpreted as influencing the vote.
I wouldn't go so far, it's not really
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 10:46:46PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 03:44:12 +0200, Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
But I see how it would help if the CFV was more verbose about that,
and less verbose about other things. It goes on and on about the
technicalities
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 10:40:01PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
If you think the vote period is too short, then I suppose there
is the option to see if other
people consider it so too, and see if you can redo some of the
constitutional amendment that was passed by acclaim last
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 02:51:59PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I propose that you make the beginning look like this:
HOW TO VOTE
First, read the full text of [...variable data...]
The ballot is a small text form that is included below. It is cast
by sending a filled out and
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 10:12:20PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
Can you present a sample ballot for, say, DPL election 2009? It
might help to see a full ballot and compare the points of difference.
Will do (in another mail).
Here it is - with some other changes while I was at it. (I
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 05:25:40PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
b) move the address to send the ballot to up front, where we mention
it.
Good idea, and it can't hurt to repeat it.
Maybe also warn against group-replies? I personally think that we should
discourage such public voting, but
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 02:15:55AM +0100, Anand Kumria wrote:
Especially when the instructions for requesting a ballot are
frustrating incomplete and this was processed after the the cut-off.
Who knew that attempting to engage an automated system from 21:54 GMT
onwards in order to receive a
On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 11:51:06PM +0200, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
And if so, what is the plan for wordpress in etch and lenny?
I recommend to drop it from Lenny, but if people choose to
repeat mistakes I won't waste my time on argueing.
I don't quite see the point of this...
On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 06:26:06PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 6:01 PM, Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=wordpress;dist=stable
shows zero RC bugs, and I found two DSA-s for it, 1258 and 1502.
The remaining filed
On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 05:10:27PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
I do agree with Ian, however, that the tech-ctte is one of the worst
examples for limiting hats for a slightly different reason: the tech-ctte
needs to make decisions for the project that the project can then
implement. Yes, this
On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 06:18:37PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
What that means is that it is very important that the TC has the very
best people on it. But it is a fact of life - particularly in a
volunteer project like Debian - that the best people are often the
very same people who are doing
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 11:34:37PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Indeed, it does seem a bit strange to use those terms in this context,
where me and the person whose idea you attacked are developers with no
particular elevated position over you, and you are a member of the
technical
On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 04:55:49PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
than to keep arguing subtle points about judgement.
Again, your description of your previous posts seems somewhat
more flattering than the posts themselves. Subtle points of judgement
while continuing to hector
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 09:45:59PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
[...]
I was hoping for the best, but expecting the worst - I expected a
point-by-point reply sigh but I was hoping that I wouldn't see one
because I thought that you would see that I was just trying to explain
the two opposing
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 06:28:26PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Any tech ctte member worth their salt would be involved in Debian
beyond maintaining packages (if for nothing else to demonstrate they
are qualified to be tech ctte members).
I would think that in a project with 1000
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 07:04:09PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Josip Rodin writes (Re: Technical committee resolution):
Instead, I would suggest to do two things - first, institute a better
process, one that doesn't so much focus on intricate stalemates (like the
present 6.2 does), but one
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 10:24:17AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
I know that account creation would be quick so long as you're active in
the team
That sentence could have ended right there, the fact that there is a SPoF
there is problematic enough.
--
2. That which causes joy or
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 01:48:28PM +1100, Anthony Towns wrote:
there's not much that can be done internally to improve things, and since
it's almost entirely self-appointed and has no oversight whatsoever [...]
The idea is to encourage DPLs to appoint two new members during their
term,
I'm
On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 01:48:44PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
I assumed that soc-ctte would intervene somehow on any issue referred
to them, even if it is just to say let the existing processes stand.
If it ends up at soc-ctte, there is a problem to resolve.
[...]
What should be soc-ctte's
On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 10:55:28AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
There is the oft-mentioned optimal team size of about seven
active members. http://www.qsm.com/process_01.html
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1501
How many more than seven would we need, to expect seven to be
On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 11:02:09AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It depends. Being able to reach consensus may make it easier for the
soc-ctte to look at the situation and go there's strong disagreement
here and even if we're mostly on one side, we realize that
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 04:48:20PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
I think this runs the same risk as the original US Vice Presidential
election system. If you elect the runner-up as part of the same slate as
the winner, you end up with pathological results in a divisive election
with two or more
On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 02:47:20PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Or, we could elect a list directly (ie each option is a list of people
willing to work together as SC), which would allow to elect a SC which
is actually representative for Debian.
This means parties, and I don't see any
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 05:33:54PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
+If the election requires multiple winners, the list of winners is
+created by sorting the list of options by ascending strength.
+If there are multiple winners with the same ranking which exceed
On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 01:38:26AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
I've had enough bad experiences with committees and groups in the past
that I've developed a deep dislike of voting or nomination systems that
don't take into account the ability of the chosen slate to work with
each other.
On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 02:22:41AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
The problem most often materializes when there are heated opinions, but
the fundamental problem is when people can't work together with mutual
respect. If you end up with people who intensely dislike each other, the
group will have
On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 02:29:23AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
To select events coordinators, for example, we might want to have
five people each on a different continent, even though three of the
best events coordinators happen to be in Europe, on the basis that one
European, one North
On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 09:24:41AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
The problem most often materializes when there are heated opinions,
but the fundamental problem is when people can't work together with
mutual respect. If you end up with people who intensely dislike each
other, the group
On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 09:26:53AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
To select events coordinators, for example, we might want to have
five people each on a different continent, even though three of the
best events coordinators happen to be in Europe, on the basis that
one European, one North
On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 07:45:53PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
That is: the DPL should propose candidates, which the electorate will
separately vote on.
Well, what can I say other than - the scheme where we depend on the DPL to
propose candidates doesn't work if the DPL never does anything even
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 06:08:41PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
couldn't we get cycles using that? Alternatively, we could iteratively
elect:
- winner1: the winner with all candidates
- winner2: the winner with all candidates minus winner1
- winner3: the winner with all candidates minus
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 07:26:42PM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
So, I proposed the following addition to the section A.6. Vote Counting
(part of appendix A Standard Resolution Procedure):
The method you suggest suffers from not delivering proportional results.
See discussion in
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 12:02:26PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Er, but I didn't suggest that. Or at least I don't think I did - or is
the picture provided at the vote.d.o generated by applying the
iterative method?
The pictures are my very own, minimal computation, not-to-be-
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 02:54:18PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I think you misunderstand. The graph is a perfectly clear
representation of the pairwise defeats as it corresponds to the single
winner outcome; and it shows the relative strengths of the defeats.
There is nothing
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 10:40:57AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
- it seems to be pandering to literalists in a similar way to the
Editorial Changes GR and that hasn't really ended those arguments;
I disagree strongly with the latter part of that statement. Various
people are still *upset*
On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 12:37:16PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
Yes, the social contract says that the Debian system and all of its
components will be fully free; but for all practical intents and
purposes (heh), the accompanying license texts are as much a
component of the system as is the
On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 07:42:02PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
'We promise that the Debian system and all its components will be free
according to these guidelines.'.
Dear Josip,
are you really sure that the licences are components of the Debian
system? If one removes them, the system,
On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 09:48:51AM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
Egad, it sounds like you actually live in an evil parallel universe where
idealism is inherently dishonest and false. That universe must really suck.
:)
There's a difference between idealism and lying about adhering to one's
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 08:24:39AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
There's a difference between idealism and lying about adhering to
one's ideals.
Yeah, and we're not lying about adhering to our ideals simply by
distributing the obligatory license data. If we weren't doing that,
we'd have
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 08:07:03AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
The Social Contract makes a promise we are not keeping. You say it's
not ... something the social contract cares about. That's not at all
clear from reading it -- the social contract makes a straightforward
promise, which has no
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 09:30:51AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
[The status quo] doesn't address the concern that motivated this
discussion: that the license texts which have restrictions on
modification are non-free works by the DFSG, yet are being
distributed in Debian against the Social
On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 03:59:08PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: Frankly
I'd be happy with any honest solution. Currently the promise made in the
Social Contract is very stark, very bold, and also untrue. The DFSG are
very stark and bold about this as well. Lots of must, never and
100%,
On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 02:46:23PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
It eases the parsing of occasional corner cases with some
voters, yes, but if forces *all* voters to read something that
is inherently confusing.
Well, let me provide a more accurate analogy - if you pay several
On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 04:11:53PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
redundant information eases parsing of potentially MTA mangled ballots
It eases the parsing of occasional corner cases with some voters, yes, but
if forces *all* voters to read something that is inherently confusing.
Given
On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 08:13:03AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
redundant information eases parsing of potentially MTA mangled
ballots
It eases the parsing of occasional corner cases with some voters,
yes, but if forces *all* voters to read something that is inherently
confusing.
On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 12:31:00PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
redundant information eases parsing of potentially MTA mangled
ballots
It eases the parsing of occasional corner cases with some voters,
yes, but if forces *all* voters to read something that is
inherently
On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 10:45:40PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
[ ] Choice 1: Wouter Verhelst
...
[ ] Choice A: None Of The Above
Would it be possible to use just letters, rather than both letters
and numbers ? That will make everything a little less confusing -
in particular it
On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 02:01:38PM -0800, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
In the brackets next to your preferred choice, place a 1. Place a 2 in
the brackets next to your next choice. Continue till you reach your
last choice.
In the brackets next to your preferred choice, place an A. Place a
On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 05:47:45AM +0100, Simon Richter wrote:
The idea itself is not a bad one, however during the entire course of
the experiment it was never questioned by the proponents that we should
go through with it. Declaring it an experiment did not have the desired
effect of
Hi,
How much time do you generally have to read Debian-related e-mail?
How much for the Debian mailing lists?
How many lists do you follow, and which ones do you pay real attention to?
Have you stopped following a Debian mailing list in the past, and if so,
what was the most important/common
On Sat, Jun 26, 2004 at 09:03:48AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
So, what do we all learn from this for the future? _That's_ the major
question for me.
I learned that we[1] tend to screw up and concentrate on the wrong things
in mailing list discussions: by the time an important point is reached,
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 05:11:47PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
The current vote will determine what the majority of voters think.
Hopefully that will be the end of it.
Not likely. The last vote determined what 3/4 of the voters thought,
and people weren't willing to let
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 01:30:03PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
I don't recall you complaining at the time about the title or
description.
Perhaps because nobody ever hinted that the resolution would cause the
release manager to change things? Heck, I didn't see any hints that the
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 01:25:46PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
He was right that time.
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 02:07:04PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
No, he wasn't. An ad hominem argument appeals to non-rational things,
whereas Hamish pointed out two facts: that Andrew started two general
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 11:27:07PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
The current vote will determine what the majority of voters think.
Hopefully that will be the end of it.
Not likely. The last vote determined what 3/4 of the voters thought,
and people weren't willing to let that be the
On Sat, Jun 19, 2004 at 07:47:07PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
I would point out that historically, Debian does not release before it
is ready, and that's why our releases usually work so well. Option 3
is the release before it is ready, because releasing is more
important than being
On Sat, Jun 19, 2004 at 10:56:49PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
[ ] Choice 6: Reaffirm the current SC[needs 1:1]
Choice 6 is titled wrong. It's not a reaffirmation of the social
contract, it's an affirmation of a certain interpretation of the
social contract. An affirmation
On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 10:07:35PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
[ ] Choice 6: Reaffirm the current SC[needs 1:1]
Choice 6 is titled wrong. It's not a reaffirmation of the social
contract, it's an affirmation of a certain interpretation of the
social contract. An
On Sat, Jun 19, 2004 at 03:35:58PM +0200, Eike zyro Sauer wrote:
PS: I'm still sure that 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 include dropping the GPL text
from Debian (AKA suicide) sooner or later. I don't want to discuss this
again, as it has been discussed in depth already, I just want to mention.
Yeah, but
a wee bit more sense than vorlon's proposal because it
doesn't impose a fixed time limit and instead deals with it in relative
terms. I don't see any seconds yet, so here's one.
--
Josip Rodin
(signed)
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
a wee bit more sense than vorlon's proposal because it
doesn't impose a fixed time limit and instead deals with it in relative
terms. I don't see any seconds yet, so here's one.
--
Josip Rodin
(signed)
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 12:40:24PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
I'm just following up to note that [EMAIL PROTECTED] does not
forward to the technical committee (and apparently you won't get a
bounce ...).
Hmm... this feature might be a contributing factor on some of the
complaints that the
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 02:56:09PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
The Social Contract now states:
] 1. Debian will remain 100% free
]
] We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a work is free
] in the document entitled The Debian Free Software Guidelines. We
] promise that the
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 01:10:47PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
That is bot, BTW, how quorum works. You would need at least
46 people to change the foundation documents, as long as they were of
one mind.
I find it amusing that we have people who were horrified how
hard it
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 12:40:24PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
I'm just following up to note that [EMAIL PROTECTED] does not
forward to the technical committee (and apparently you won't get a
bounce ...).
Hmm... this feature might be a contributing factor on some of the
complaints that the
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 02:56:09PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
The Social Contract now states:
] 1. Debian will remain 100% free
]
] We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a work is free
] in the document entitled The Debian Free Software Guidelines. We
] promise that the
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 01:10:47PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
That is bot, BTW, how quorum works. You would need at least
46 people to change the foundation documents, as long as they were of
one mind.
I find it amusing that we have people who were horrified how
hard it
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 09:19:40AM +0200, Mikko Moilanen wrote:
Declare it as nonfree and I will quit immediatly using Debian, and I
will remove Debian from my relatives and friends too.
OH MY GOD!! NOO!!!1!
Ahem. We grew out of the ..., or I quite! argumentation a few years ago
in Debian.
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 09:19:40AM +0200, Mikko Moilanen wrote:
Declare it as nonfree and I will quit immediatly using Debian, and I
will remove Debian from my relatives and friends too.
OH MY GOD!! NOO!!!1!
Ahem. We grew out of the ..., or I quite! argumentation a few years ago
in Debian.
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 08:37:20PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
I don't know if that's sufficient, but I know that it can do a lot to
make the meek feel more welcome, to know that people will stand up.
Except that proposing foundational document ammendments is not for the meek.
If someone
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 08:37:20PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
I don't know if that's sufficient, but I know that it can do a lot to
make the meek feel more welcome, to know that people will stand up.
Except that proposing foundational document ammendments is not for the meek.
If someone
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:22:37AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
alas, that doesn't happen on mailing lists. instead, it goes on for
weeks or months until it pisses somebody off enough to finally say
something about it - unfortunately triggering another round of
pedantic
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 09:05:27AM +, Peter Samuelson wrote:
Is this just a game to you?
I wondered how many messages it would take for someone to notice.
--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble?
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 09:05:27AM +, Peter Samuelson wrote:
Is this just a game to you?
I wondered how many messages it would take for someone to notice.
--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 10:04:09AM +1100, Ben Burton wrote:
Vague fears of persecution are a sign of mental instability which can't
be fixed by an operating system free or otherwise.
Vague fears?? I don't think it would take either of us very long to
find examples of rude, dismissal and
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 03:07:47PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
I agree, though it should be noted that Debian at least tries to be an
equal opportunity hostile place -- _everyone_ gets abused :)
Not really equally, however -- more visible people tend to get more
abuse than less visible
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 10:04:09AM +1100, Ben Burton wrote:
Vague fears of persecution are a sign of mental instability which can't
be fixed by an operating system free or otherwise.
Vague fears?? I don't think it would take either of us very long to
find examples of rude, dismissal and
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 03:07:47PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
I agree, though it should be noted that Debian at least tries to be an
equal opportunity hostile place -- _everyone_ gets abused :)
Not really equally, however -- more visible people tend to get more
abuse than less visible
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 01:03:39AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
why doesn't the search engine find any references to [the constitution] at
all?
Please file a bug...
(Note that the first match on the site map for constitution works.)
--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 02:13:00PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
In the event that this counter-amendment should become active, I
propose the following amendment to it, replacing its complete text:
Craig Sanders is a louse, and shall be crushed by a falling cow.
I'd first have to see the
1 - 100 of 140 matches
Mail list logo
