I just want to say that I am deeply dismayed by the turn events
have been taking.
I have a lot of respect for both A.J. and Manoj.
But I don't see a reasonable basis for this disagreement -- this
feels more like venting under high pressure (mostly the Etch
release, I think).
In that context,
On 10/7/06, Debian Project Secretary [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Voting period starts 00:00:01 UTC on Sunday,
Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC on Saturday,
Fortunately, vote.debian.org provides the associated dates.
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a
On 9/26/06, Denis Barbier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 09:02:19PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
I don't understand how this proposal answers the question.
One answer implied by your proposal: Dunc-tank is
grounds for removing Debian's leader, that means it
is a debian
On 9/21/06, Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 12:17:18 +0100, Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
3. The person who calls for a vote states what they believe the
wordings of the resolution and any relevant amendments are, and
consequently what form the
On 9/20/06, Denis Barbier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anthony Towns [wrote]:
A question that has been raised is whether the
organisation can be sufficiently outside of Debian when
the DPL is intimately involved. I don't have the answer
to that - in my opinion it can be, but whether
A couple weeks ago, Frans Pop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My rough summary:
- (almost) everybody agrees that non-free drivers don't belong in main;
- (almost) everybody agrees that sourceless firmware at least needs to be
distributable before any kind of support can be considered;
- most people
On 9/21/06, Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On which subject, does anyone else think that it would be useful to
leave debian-vote for formal proposals/seconds (possibly moderated), and
another list e.g. debian-vote-discuss (or even just -project) for the
flame^Wdiscussions that follow?
On 9/21/06, I wrote:
Personally, I'd say that if the situation is so ambiguous ...
Note that nothing I said here in any way overrides the procedures
the Secretary posted to dda -- I should have read that announcement
before posting.
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
On 9/8/06, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 05:08:28PM -0500, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 02:42:26PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
Perhaps we should start addressing the CD distributor problem (perhaps
tagging CD distributable software
On 9/6/06, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Suggesting the reverse would be a massive change of course for Debian
as a whole.
Would this massive change of course be a suggestion?
Or would it be something that actually exists?
If it's a suggestion, I'm not sure your assertion is
On 9/6/06, Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sep 06, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is an absolute ranking in Debian, that *first* we must provide
100% free software, and *second* we do whatever we can to help our
users consistent with the first.
This is just your
Perhaps, before we spend too many more years on trying to solve this
problem, we should agree on what this problem is?
One issue here is that we are trying to make a statement about what
direction we are heading. As M.J.Ray states:
The GPL is far closer to 100% free than a source-withheld
What strikes me as ironic, with these proposals, is that we ran into
something like this problem back in the 90s, back during the initial
adoption of the DFSG, and we had to solve that problem then:
we created the non-free and contrib sections.
For some reason, these sections are no longer seen
On 4/13/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your question, as stated, asks for an explanation for a state of affairs
which does not exist.
My question is: why do some people claim that the FDL wasn't drafted
to prohibit all technical measures that obstruct
On 4/12/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 4/11/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nevertheless, neither of us would be made happy by a detailed
repeat of it on -vote. You'd remain unconvinced and I'd be
annoyed by the lost time.
Your comment
On 4/11/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller wrote:
I was not convinced by this rebuttal.
Nevertheless, neither of us would be made happy by a detailed
repeat of it on -vote. You'd remain unconvinced and I'd be
annoyed by the lost time.
Your comment, here, does not agree
On 4/10/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 4/7/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I keep asking why some people claim that the FDL wasn't drafted to
prohibit all copy-control measures, as that seems to be a crucial
question in this, and nobody
On 4/7/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I keep asking why some people claim that the FDL wasn't drafted to
prohibit all copy-control measures, as that seems to be a crucial
question in this, and nobody answered yet AFAICT.
Power switches can be used as copy control measures.
If copies are
On 2/28/06, Oliver Elphick olly@lfix.co.uk wrote:
On Sat, 2006-02-25 at 17:21 -0600, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
Majority Requirement
Amendment B requires a 3:1 majority, since it require
modifications to the Social contract, or the DFSG, both
foundation
On 2/28/06, Oliver Elphick olly@lfix.co.uk wrote:
Put more bluntly: the constitution does not require that the text
be editted for 3:1 supermajority requirement cases.
Well, I am actually inhabiting the real world rather than the Debian
parallel universe!
I'd appreciate it if you limited
[On 2/27/06, Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since the way these choices are proposed to you is misleading, I have
to sent this specifying message to you all.
Without passing judgement, I'll note that a statement like this demands
well stated proof.
[...eliding background material...]
On 2/14/06, olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In every matter, it is virtually impossible to write a rule that can
mechanically be interpreted to give a suitable result.
I disagree.
It's impossible to cover all aspects of all cases, but obtaining
suitable results is entirely possible.
The
On 2/10/06, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 11:37:59AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
And, likewise, you can't argue that the secretary must treat an option
as accepted when preparing the ballot. Treating controversial
general resolution proposals as if they'd
On 2/10/06, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
I didn't say anything about the ballot options being ignored -- I said the
constitution doesn't say anything about ignoring foundation documents --
ie the social contract or the DFSG. We're actually doing that right now
in a sense, by
On 2/11/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 03:21:57PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
The vote is not a means of rescinding the DFSG or SC, nor even of
contradicting them. It is the *only* means we have of determining
whether something is in compliance with them.
On 2/10/06, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
Personally, I'd rather the secretarial role be as automatic as possible,
even to the point where votes would be run without any human intervention.
I've thought about that before, but I don't have the inclination to
write any code for it.
On 2/11/06, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
Branden, under 4.2(4) you're empowered to vary the minimum discussion
period of 2 weeks for this vote by up to one week; given the discussion
The minimum discussion period is a lower bound on the time for the
discussion. It's not an upper
On 2/11/06, I wrote:
Casting a discussion about when the voting should begin in terms of
changing the minimum discussion period seems misleading.
P.S. I also think that the minimum discussion period is the minimum
discussion period for a resolution or an amendment.
P.P.S. I also think the
On 2/11/06, Simon Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem case is where the option has majority, but fails
supermajority.
Another problem case is where we pass a GR that expresses
some judgement about past events.
For example, imagine a GR that says we have never received any spam.
If
On 2/9/06, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 05:18:18PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On 2/9/06, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
As it happens, it says nothing about implicit changes to foundation
documents, or even about having to act in accord
On 2/9/06, Christopher Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To impose the 3:1 requirement requires, beforehand, a judgment concerning
the DFSG. Since no one has found a Secretarial basis for that power, it
follows that to arbitrarily impose 3:1 supermajorities (when doing so on
the basis of a
On 2/9/06, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 08:58:39PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
It's not about honor; it's about decision-making.
When you raise the implication that your fellow developers can't be
trusted, you make it about honour; when you think
On 2/8/06, Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 11:50:51AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
If the GR is adopted by Debian, there is no significant difference
between contradicts the foundation documents and modifies
the foundation documents.
First of all, you're
On 2/9/06, Christopher Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please cite the part of the constitution which grants the Secretary this
extraordinary power. Despite what Raul Miller repeatedly asserts, a minor
power to decide issues of constitutional interpretation in cases of
deadlock DOES NOT mean
On 2/9/06, Christopher Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But why does the Secretary get to decide whether this barrier should be set
or not?
The constitution says:
... the final decision on the form of ballot(s) is the Secretary's -
see 7.1(1),
7.1(3) and A.3(4).
I think that's pretty clear.
On 2/1/06, Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could some one tell me why including the invariant sections of
a GFDL licensed work in main would not require us to modify the DFSG
or the social contract?
I think it's clear that the DFSG would have to be modified.
If nothing
I wouldn't wait longer than a week after your initial post
to pose such surrogate answers.
On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 09:57:14AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
I won't do this. I'll do it just before the end of the discussion
period instead of just after, if that's a new rule for
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 05:11:28PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
So, rather than beat a dead horse, since I intend to ask the same
question (or much the same question) next year, what should I do
differently?
Ideally, you should ask your question(s) at the begining
of the campaigning
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 02:27:12PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
way. If candidates felt that by ignoring my question they wouldn't
need to explain their records in detail, they were incorrect.
Between Feb 6 and Mar 19, you sent 74 messages to debian-vote, around
half a megabyte of text.
How can the tech-ctte override a developer by not acting?
On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 10:55:21AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
No, the question is whether a developer (by never acting) can avoid
tech-ctte review of his work.
What work?
A developer who never acts would have no work to
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What work?
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 02:46:17PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
I have in mind, for example, the ifupdown script. The maintainer has
not made a maintainer upload for years, and so maintenance of the
package has been proceding by NMU
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 03:26:23PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
My question is: when there is a technical issue, but one developer
refuses to discuss it with tech-ctte or anyone else, can tech-ctte get
involved?
Yes.
It does, but I recall in the past being told that tech-ctte doesn't
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Note: I originally posted this to another list -- thinking this whole
debian-women thread was off topic for debian-vote. M.J. Ray
indicated only that he thinks debian-vote is the appropriate list, so
I'm reposting it here, with minor edits
Amaya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
[...] As there's is absolutely no seggregation in the debian-women
environment, men can benefit, and I'm sure *do* benefit, from this
wellcoming climate too.
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 11:52:50PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Is a bus with a whites-only section
To: debian-vote@lists.debian.org
This is why I suspect ftpmaster is a particular instance of some
more general problem. At the moment, is there a constititional
loophole that one can avoid tech-ctte overruling one (the only
time complaints are mentioned) by never acting?
I'm having trouble
On Sat, Jul 17, 2004 at 07:00:58AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Is this purely because of linking problems with shared libraries, or is
there some other kind of need to support two diferent instances of the
same application?
Its a problem with avoiding archive bloat through biarch
On Sat, Jul 17, 2004 at 03:33:17PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
You're jumping through a lot of hoops to get to somewhere which is a bit
like multiarch, but not quite. And you'll end up with something less
capable, more ugly and a lot more work to support properly when
upgrading to
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 05:16:10AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
The only thing special for amd64 is that at some point the /lib64 -
/lib link might (or might not) be turned back into a real
directoy. But that can/will only happen if it can happen silently
without disturbance.
Which
If you don't provide a dual 32/64 bit amd64, your transition strategy
is going to be install it on a different partition or backup, wipe
and reinstall.
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 09:14:25AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
That is the plan and the current implementation. As such pure64 has
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 09:25:22AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
No. You obviously never tried or read the mails about it. If you don't
have lib64 - lib linked you get lots and lots of random breakages and
misbuilds. In effect you have to touch and fix all 2000+ library
packages. There is
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 09:31:39AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
apt-get install dchroot cdebootstrap
read FAQ
I've already raised this in another message, but how do I make 32 bit
userland able to use 64 bit programs?
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 10:53:02AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
| Last time I checked [two days ago], the trivial change to dpkg to support
| amd64 hadn't happened. I think making sure that the debian package tools
| work right for the architecture should be considered pre-requisites for
|
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 09:15:47AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
And get every package in the archive changed and updated for it ..
This (every package changed) doesn't have to happen until multiarch
is ready.
[Before you explained about multiarch, my only objection was the lack
of 32 bit LSB
You could install a biarch glibc which supports both 32 and 64 bit
dpkg.
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 03:20:43PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Which would be a completly new glibc package adding extra bloat to the
already streesed mirrors.
We're talking about something several orders of
| It's fairly simple for the port to be built to support both 32 and 64
| bit LSB apps, and still allow for migration to multiarch.
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 06:45:17PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
As others have said -- it's not easy to support both 32 and 64 bit. If
you want to do that
You could install a biarch glibc which supports both 32 and 64 bit
dpkg.
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 03:20:43PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Which would be a completly new glibc package adding extra bloat to the
already streesed mirrors.
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
* Raul Miller ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 11:32:22AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
Do you have an example of this case? I havn't heard of one yet, not
even with Oracle.
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 04:51:05PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
They're going to charge you huge
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 06:19:20PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Now there is a *different* question: should the current amd64 be in
sid? I can see no reason why not, but then, I wonder why you all
didn't get it in sid *long* ago. We put hurd-i386 in sid almost from
the very first day.
Is it just me or are these two paragraphs contradictory?
On Sat, Jul 17, 2004 at 04:28:32AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Yes, its just you. Multiarch will not be an issue for sid for a long
time to come. If you want it work on it but it just confuses in the
GR.
Why?
Is this
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 10:17:14PM -0800, D. Starner wrote:
To become LSB compliant would involve changing half the packages in
Debian to achieve a result to many AMD64 developers consider inelegant;
furthermore, a multiarch design is being created that would allow
us to install Linux binaries
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 02:04:54PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
People choose ix86 (or amd64) over PowerPC because
a) bang/buck ratio.
b) runs windows (games.)
Those are two reasons.
Unfortunately, the current debian amd64 port doesn't look like it supports
cedega (forinstance).
More
* Raul Miller ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
The most likely reason someone would pick the AMD64 architecture over
the PowerPC architecture is that AMD64 can natively run I386 binaries.
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 08:33:23AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
That's quite an assumption you're making
Unfortunately, the current debian amd64 port doesn't look like it supports
cedega (forinstance).
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 04:16:48PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
It does support a number of commercial binaries though already, for
those that need them. Many of us don't.
I don't know what you
Those are two reasons.
Unfortunately, the current debian amd64 port doesn't look like it supports
cedega (forinstance).
More generally, by not providing 32 bit support, we're reducing the
bang/buck ratio.
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 09:18:39PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let me
If we release an amd64 in sarge, we're committing to supporting it.
If the current port paints us into a corner, that's a good reason to
not start supporting it yet.
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 09:28:57PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Correct. However, that does not apply to putting it into
It is an assumption. It's based on some simple observations
on how the marketplace has treated various 64 bit
architectures.
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 05:11:29PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
Right, my observation is from talking with real people who really
bought amd64 systems and who
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 05:56:51PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
The Debian amd64 port does support some 32 bit binaries through the use
of ia32-libs.
Ok, I was under the impression that it did not.
I'll try to install it this weekend.
I'm very curious as to what, specifically, *you* need.
Care to explain how not having any 64bit userland would be better?
It'll be a lot easier to support 64/32 bit userland this way.
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 06:15:23PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
Uh, nope, wrong... We're going to be moving to multiarch on all archs,
so this just isn't
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 06:25:31PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
Well, there aren't any 32bit apps in Debian, so it'd have to be
something you got from somewhere else.
Does this mean you've a valgrind package for amd64?
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 06:45:59PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
If so, which part of I'm talking about 64/32 bit userland -- which
is something other distributions already offer. or That's not vapor
are you having problems with?
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 01:05:29AM +0200, Michael Banck wrote
It does support a number of commercial binaries though already, for
those that need them. Many of us don't.
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 04:36:30PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
I don't know what you mean here. Is It amd64 or cedega? I'm guessing
amd64. Are the commercial binaries i386
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 08:38:46PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
Apparently you have woody/i386 (our stable arch) running on an amd64 box
today and are concerned about an upgrade path to amd64 in sarge.
Actually, it's sarge.
You're right, there isn't one. The answer is very simple- wait for
* Raul Miller ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
This isn't official or anything, but I think that /lib and /lib64 being
symlinks are perfectly adequate. As long as they're not symlinks to
the same place.
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 08:50:22PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
Yeah, sorry, not gonna
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 09:09:46PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
Those funcs may be available through ia32-libs... I was actually
wondering more about specific programs.
The no-cost linux downloads from kx.com and jsoftware.com are the ones
I'm most concerned about (in that order).
--
Raul
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 09:45:19PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
sarge isn't supported/released, therefore this is not an issue when
discussing if amd64 should be released with sarge.
You've confused the configuration of my machine with the issues
I'm discussing.
That's not my concern. I can
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 02:43:59PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
The only valid reasons for not including it are lack of LSB compliance
(which can still be easily achieved with a i386 chroot) and mirror space
(which will be saved using partial mirroring).
Is this a claim that all of the
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 02:43:59PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
1. that the next Debian GNU/Linux release, codenamed sarge, will
include the amd64 architecture, based on the work currently hosted
at http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org/ ;
I think this is the wrong way to approach
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 11:07:04PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
In my eyes, voting on technical issues is still better than no
explicit decision at all. Both options are horrible, but explicit
decisions are still better than implicit ones, no matter how they are
made.
It's probably worth
It's probably worth noting that the dpkg I downloaded as of 5 minutes ago
still doesn't support the amd64 architecture. This is a trivial patch,
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 12:50:29AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
I haven't uploaded one that does yet.
Thanks, that's somewhat informative.
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 05:42:04AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Ah, so suddenly you're not allowed to discuss issues in case you cause
anybody to change their mind. That really is what Manoj has been
complaining about.
No.
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 05:25:28AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
[You have quite neatly just demonstrated what argumentum ad hominem
actually is, though].
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 03:05:08PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
Do you have that phrase on a macro key yet?
He was right that time.
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
resolutions and that both of them were rather divisive.
I believe
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 09:12:52PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
An easier way is to look at the votes when they come
out. Anyone who votes further discussion in the top 3 is not
interested in compromise or consensus, and has decided My way or
the Highway.
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 12:16:26PM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
You're implying here that those things were allowed under a valid
interpretation of the original SC.
Given historical practice, that's not an unreasonable interpretation.
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
| ... It would be a bad idea to write a long document `under the gun'. ...
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 01:41:22AM +0200, Arthur de Jong wrote:
This pretty much pleads agains proposal E.
The constitution is long. Proposal E is not long.
Would it be correct to assume that only the passing of
On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 08:41:55AM +0200, Milan Zamazal wrote:
be abused by focusing on the exact wording of the SC. Taking the
wording literally and solving the problems by postponing or reverting
the SC changes looks like an ugly hack to me.
At least three of the ballot options do not have
On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 05:19:22PM +0200, Arthur de Jong wrote:
And to not make the same mistake twice, is there some statement from the
release manager somewhere regarding this vote?
The release manager has said that he feels making release policy
without the involvement of the rest of the
Software which can't be ported, which can't have security problems
resolved, which can't be delivered, and which can't be used are all
examples of problems we're trying to avoid.
On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 01:39:39PM +1000, Ben Burton wrote:
Does can't be used include had its documentation
Ah, never retain from a ad-hominem attacks, eh?
On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 12:00:58AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Oh, come on. That was not an argument, therefore it cannot *possibly*
be an instance of argumentum ad hominem.
How is missing the point of what he said relevant?
--
Raul
--
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 11:54:05AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Personally, I don't buy the notion that this is a release issue at
all. Dropping non-free stuff just isn't that hard; it wouldn't take
long.
I don't think the time is only for dropping non-free stuff.
I think it's also for going
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 10:27:58AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
However, as the 3:1-majority is needed anyways(*), I don't mind to add
something like:
In the opinion of the Secretary, this proposal overrules the social
contract, and needs therefor a 3:1-majority. In the opinion of the
On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 10:31:21AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Objection. Common sense is what tells you that the world is flat.
Common sense tells me that if the world was flat the horizon would always
be obscured.
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 10:39:10AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
Reason: Please be specific what you want. As long as a GR doesn't say
that it might touch a foundation document, it doesn't do.
It might be nice if the constitution (or some foundation document)
said this.
As it happens, people
On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 06:22:09PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
In my opinion it's as this:
- If a GR has normal majority, and does not conflict with a foundation
document, it's ok.
Until the vote is held, it's not reasonable to act on any specific
outcome for the vote -- we can't know
Position of the day statements can overrule foundation documents if
they achieve a 3:1 majority seems to be a valid interpetation of the
constitution.
On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 02:23:51AM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
Note the difference between overruling and reaffirming.
Note the difference
Does that mean non-free must be empty for Sarge?
On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 02:40:25AM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
You're impliing that, under your interpretation of the SC, non-free is part
of Debian. This interpretation would make the SC contradict itself, and
bring us to the silly situation
On Fri, May 28, 2004 at 03:38:47PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
While we're on the subject of interpretations, the first clause (The
Debian project resolves that it will not compromise on freedom)
constitutes a position statement about an issue of the day, under
4.1.5. Anybody who tries to
On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 09:03:47PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
You can put whatever you want in your sources.list, and they
can point whereever they want, but that does not make it part of
Sarge, which we, as a project, release.
Nevertheless, there is a non-free accompaniment to
On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 09:02:33PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
The social contract currently reads:
==
1 Debian will remain 100% free
...
system require the use of a non-free component.
On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 11:49:12PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
For anything not in the distribution (e.g. the web pages), I would
agree. However, I _do_ think that the social contract is saying that
anything in the distribution must be free software.
Sure.
But what you're showing here is
1 - 100 of 1390 matches
Mail list logo
