Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hmm, OK. A real reference. I'd always assumed it was just poor
practice (given that the general population has serious trouble
with the apostrophe).
I wonder if this applies to British/Australian English as well.
The older rule was to put in more
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And which grammatical rule suggests the apostrophes?
It's the standard rule for pluralizing single lower-case letters.
Chicago Manual of Style, 13th ed; 6.9--10:
6.9: So far as it can be done without confusion, single or multiple
letters used as
Glenn McGrath [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Cmon people, its getting a bit OT to argue about the grammer of the
announcment isnt it (as long as the numbers are correct).
C'mon people, it's getting a bit OT to argue about the grammar of the
announcement, isn't it? (as long as the numbers are
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hmm, OK. A real reference. I'd always assumed it was just poor
practice (given that the general population has serious trouble
with the apostrophe).
I wonder if this applies to British/Australian English as well.
The older rule was to put in more
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And which grammatical rule suggests the apostrophes?
It's the standard rule for pluralizing single lower-case letters.
Chicago Manual of Style, 13th ed; 6.9--10:
6.9: So far as it can be done without confusion, single or multiple
letters used as
Glenn McGrath [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Cmon people, its getting a bit OT to argue about the grammer of the
announcment isnt it (as long as the numbers are correct).
"C'mon people, it's getting a bit OT to argue about the grammar of the
announcement, isn't it? (as long as the numbers are
Rob Mahurin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 05:04:41PM +0200, Nils Lohner wrote:
is prefered to Choice #2: Anand Kumria (165-31)
Preferred has two r's.
No. Preferred has three r's.
Thomas
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm sure you will, Justice Scalia...
No, no, Scalia's choice wasn't arbitrary. It was deliberate and
preplanned.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm sure you will, Justice Scalia...
No, no, Scalia's choice wasn't arbitrary. It was deliberate and
preplanned.
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
While we're amending the constitution, I'd also like to fix a minor
spelling problem (minimum was misspelled).
Also "no one" is mispelled, as "noone". "Noone" is an archaic
spelling of "noon", and has nothing to do with "no one".
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
! 2. Option A is said to Dominate option B if strictly more ballots
!prefer A to B than prefer B to A.
! 3. All options which are Dominated by at least one other option are
!discarded, and references to them in ballot papers will
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
! 2. Option A is said to Dominate option B if strictly more ballots
!prefer A to B than prefer B to A.
! 3. All options which are Dominated by at least one other option
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
While we're amending the constitution, I'd also like to fix a minor
spelling problem (minimum was misspelled).
Also no one is mispelled, as noone. Noone is an archaic
spelling of noon, and has nothing to do with no one.
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
! 2. Option A is said to Dominate option B if strictly more ballots
!prefer A to B than prefer B to A.
! 3. All options which are Dominated by at least one other option are
!discarded, and references to them in ballot papers will
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
! 2. Option A is said to Dominate option B if strictly more ballots
!prefer A to B than prefer B to A.
! 3. All options which are Dominated by at least one other option
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl M. Hegbloom) writes:
No, I have not resigned. I almost gave up and wrote an email
quitting and then thought better of it and unquit. My feelings
are very hurt over this.
I've seen at least two messages where you said you resigned.
Can you please make up your
Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It seems, listening to this discussion, that there are some problems
with ambiguity and lack of clarity with regards to Appendix A and the
"Concorde" voting method and how it works.
So, then, the procedure will be:
1) Amend the Constitution to fix up
Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It seems, listening to this discussion, that there are some problems
with ambiguity and lack of clarity with regards to Appendix A and the
Concorde voting method and how it works.
So, then, the procedure will be:
1) Amend the Constitution to fix up the
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 03:40:19AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 07:34:50PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
No. I was just wondering if Branden considered the possibility that
John's name is legit, and that he might be being
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
I'm not sure this is an ideal way of looking at things from Debian's
perspective. The usual decision making process in Debian is (supposed
to be) one of reaching consensus on an issue, not one of democracy,
per se. I tend to look at consensus as
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
He said the results have not been tabulated. You say he has the
results of the vote. Well, are you calling him a liar?
I refuse to fall for the bait of a troll.
You know, I'm one of your supporters. I like your resolution. I
think you've
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I figured you'd go with the $%# flamer angle myself :) But hey, if it
trips your trigger...The Rand thing Is getting old, however...All in all,
I'd rate it a 7.5: needs work before it's Olympic caliber.
Oh, I think Rand doesn't deserve a C. Perhaps maybe
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Actually, the Constitutional Convention was supposed to amend the
Articles, and they did: they replaced them lock stock and barrel. They
did nothing to other documents: the Barbary papers were not repudiated: in
fact, in 1795, the succeeding Emperor of
I want to say that while I've been a little critical of Darren's
absence recently, I have great respect for him, and I'm encouraged
that things are moving again. Nothing that I said was intended to
criticize his ability or willingness to do a difficult job, and I'm
glad that things are moving
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Then how can they possibly be voted on together?
Because their proponents, seconders, and the Secretary think this is
the most sensible way to proceed, and they're right. And you think
they're right, and nobody's said they're wrong. If you like, we
Robert Woodcock [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 07:15:19PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
On Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 08:50:07PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
[stuff]
[more stuff]
Thomas, why did you resend this spectacle of private mail to the lists?
It's *private
Robert Woodcock [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's *private* *mail*. Treat it as such. For the sanity of the rest of us.
More to the point: if a Debian developer is sending me hateful and
abusive mail, I want the rest of the Project to know about it.
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ignoring is one thing, I respect your right to do it, but calling for
public muzzling is out of line. He has as much right to be heard as
yourself, so I think it only fair that if he goes, so do you.
That's fine; if you want Craig to continue to post
Christian Surchi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
More to the point: if a Debian developer is sending me hateful and
abusive mail, I want the rest of the Project to know about it.
I'm not interested in your flames. I consider *someone* is sending mail
to you, a Debian developer is a person
I want to say that while I've been a little critical of Darren's
absence recently, I have great respect for him, and I'm encouraged
that things are moving again. Nothing that I said was intended to
criticize his ability or willingness to do a difficult job, and I'm
glad that things are moving
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
should i be required to support your proposal against my will and
judgement? i'm certainly not going to vote for it so you lose nothing -
and i imagine that you should be able to pick up the required number of
sponsors for your proposal anyway...and if
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Given this, A.3.1 and A.3.2 seem to imply that we have to have two
votes, one to determine whether Branden's preferred form, or Manoj's
will be used, and one on whether to amend the constitution in whatever
form. Indeed, the proposed ballot seems
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
However, by the same token, I am EXTREMELY concerned and VERY unhappy
that YOUR own IRRRESPONSIBILITY and flagrant disregard of your duties,
responsibilities, and the Constitution have put us in this mess.
John, there's no reason for shouting. it will
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
However, by the same token, I am EXTREMELY concerned and VERY unhappy
that YOUR own IRRRESPONSIBILITY and flagrant disregard of your duties,
responsibilities, and the Constitution have put us in this mess.
John, there's no reason for shouting. it will
Are we all now clear on why ballots must be understandable, and why
transparency of process is important?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Are we all now clear on why ballots must be understandable, and why
transparency of process is important?
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I beg to differ. Becoming a secretary does not mean one gives
up ones right to an opinions (indeed, if it does, I'll strongly
exhort people never to step up and volunteer for such a
disenfranchising post).
I doesn't inherently. It depends
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[slipping on my P.A.S. hat:] However, as far as getting the show on
the road.. I thought it already was (on the road)? [I know we have a
potential vote, or so, but please be patient on that count.]
Well, here are some questions. Some should be easy to
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Shall we stop muzzling other people and just get on with
finding what peoples opinions are on these crucial issues so we can
all get a collectivce move on?
If you are asserting that we must never muzzle people, I agree
completely. I never
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Well, here are some questions. Some should be easy to answer right
Thomas away.
Thomas 1: What is the status of the putative ballot announced last month?
Why can't we just forget the mishaps of the past and focus on
finding
This is a letter to Darren, Wichert, and Raul. It's not an invitation
for everybody to comment and discuss and modify. It's not any kind of
proposal under the official resolutions procedure. It's a letter to
those three, only those three, in the hopes that they will proceed to
action. It's my
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
First off, Darren wrote me last week and explained what he was doing.
I didn't forward the information to the list at the time, because
I wanted to give him time to wrap things up. So, while there's some
potential here I'm not approaching this from that
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
First off, Darren wrote me last week and explained what he was doing.
I didn't forward the information to the list at the time, because
I wanted to give him time to wrap things up. So, while there's some
potential here I'm not approaching this from that
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Best resolution I can imagine is: we ratify the social contract
as having the same significance as the constitution.
This is a plausible approach to take; it's roughly what Manoj's
amendment would do.
But right now, you've probably gone and made things
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Best resolution I can imagine is: we ratify the social contract
as having the same significance as the constitution.
This is a plausible approach to take; it's roughly what Manoj's
amendment would do.
But right now, you've probably gone and made things
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If so, I second his nomination. As a member of the Free Software
Foundation, he's uniquely qualified as a bureaucrat.
Hmm.
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 08:26:17PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
[Project secretary]'s not a huge
job, but it's very important that it be done in a manner that inspires
confidence in the fairness and legitimacy of the process,
Are you
Steve Greenland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'd really like to see this vote annulled. (No, I'm not sure the
constitution allows that, except by Branden's point that the vote should
not be taking place at all.)
I think if Raul decides to step into Darren's shoes, I think making
just this
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If so, I second his nomination. As a member of the Free Software
Foundation, he's uniquely qualified as a bureaucrat.
Hmm.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So we have a vote, which ends today. One very confusing ballot was
mailed out, despite the claim on that ballot that another one would
follow. Despite repeated pleas for a clearer ballot, the secretary
has said nothing about what he will do towards making an easier to
follow one, nor has he
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Maybe both? After all, this is the committee that can't even see fit
to report the identities of its chairman or membership accurately on
the Debian website.
Eh? Now you're saying that the information on that web page came
from the committee?
No,
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Maybe both? After all, this is the committee that can't even see fit
to report the identities of its chairman or membership accurately on
the Debian website.
Eh? Now you're saying that the information on that web page came
from the committee?
No,
Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 05:33:50PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Depends on what you think Debian disks are :)
I would count the Official Debian disks.
Official Debian hard drives that carry the FTP archive?
Well, as always, I fall back
Matthew Vernon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Clearly disks owned by Debian are Debian disks. A small proportion of
their space is taken up with non-free. Deal.
Indeed we shall! At least, if the GR passes, we will.
Sven LUTHER [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think i agree with you in principle, but what do you propose to do with the
non-free packages ? just remove them from debian disks ?
They are not on the Debian disks now.
What will happen to them, would they still be able to use the BTS for their
Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Please don't make such assumptions when replying to such a valid
criticism. I maintain some non-free packages because I feel that
they are needed, and I might not do it if the burden becomes
excessive (such as having to build an outside home and
Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Depends on what you think Debian disks are :)
I would count the Official Debian disks.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sven LUTHER [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think i agree with you in principle, but what do you propose to do with the
non-free packages ? just remove them from debian disks ?
They are not on the Debian disks now.
What will happen to them, would they still be able to use the BTS for their
Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Please don't make such assumptions when replying to such a valid
criticism. I maintain some non-free packages because I feel that
they are needed, and I might not do it if the burden becomes
excessive (such as having to build an outside home and
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Our stances on this are different. Almost diametrically
opposing, as people havce pointed out. Mere polemics can't hide that
fact.
And there's no point in trying to attach labels onto the proposals;
instead, we should presume that the
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 10:54:26PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Eek, no. If Towns wanted a separate GR, he would have proposed one.
Instead, he proposed an *amendment*, which, if it succeeds, amends the
proposal, but does not thereby adopt
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
explicitly provide for -any- method to modify the Social Contract. It
It explicitly provides that: §4.1(5)
John: Again, I'm on your side here on the actual substantive issue.
But surely you can't be blind to the fact that the actual wording of
4.1(5)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert D. Hilliard) writes:
This is the heart of the matter. It is akin to the U.S.
controversy over `activist' judges, who rule based on their beliefs of
what should be, rather than on what the law says. At least in U.S.
jurisprudence several levels of appellate
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Branden Robinson) writes:
I thought the chairman of the tech ctte was (still?) Ian Jackson.
If it was/is you, then I retract the first bit of slander but not the
second, because the Tech Ctte. Chairman needed to act.
www.debian.org/intro/organization lists the technical
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Our stances on this are different. Almost diametrically
opposing, as people havce pointed out. Mere polemics can't hide that
fact.
And there's no point in trying to attach labels onto the proposals;
instead, we should presume that the
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
1. The Secretary has made a decision by fiat stating that a 3:1
supermajority is required for its passage, despite contradictory
language in the Constitution.
John: I support your proposal, but that doesn't mean that every
decision that works against it
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
explicitly provide for -any- method to modify the Social Contract. It
It explicitly provides that: §4.1(5)
John: Again, I'm on your side here on the actual substantive issue.
But surely you can't be blind to the fact that the actual wording of
4.1(5)
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 10:54:26PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Eek, no. If Towns wanted a separate GR, he would have proposed one.
Instead, he proposed an *amendment*, which, if it succeeds, amends the
proposal, but does not thereby adopt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert D. Hilliard) writes:
This is the heart of the matter. It is akin to the U.S.
controversy over `activist' judges, who rule based on their beliefs of
what should be, rather than on what the law says. At least in U.S.
jurisprudence several levels of appellate
Daniel Jacobowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I second Branden's proposal.
But unsigned, so it just doesn't count.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
I hereby sponsor (second) Brandon Robinson's proposal, as posted to debian-vote.The
proposal had Message ID [EMAIL PROTECTED],
and was tagged with ID AA12031 by murphy.debian.org.
I'm baffled. As I sent this mail it was signed. Here
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
I'm baffled. As I sent this mail it was signed. Here it is again.
Oh, I see now, gnus was over happily hiding the signature. Grr.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Cont
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Per section A.5 ("Expiry") of the constitution, I must point out that both
John Goerzen's General Resolution regarding non-free, and Anthony Towns's
amended version thereof (which per A.1.3 stands on its own as an
independent GR since John Goerzen
Bernd Eckenfels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 08:06:36PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
You can vote either way here without liking the one you vote for
today. For example, you might think both are horrible ideas, but
think John's is certain not to pass
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Branden Robinson) writes:
Eh? No ballots need to be issued to ratify an amendment *AS* an
amendment to an existing proposal:
A.1.2. A formal amendment may be accepted by the resolution's proposer, in
which case the formal resolution draft is immediately changed to match.
Daniel Jacobowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I second Branden's proposal.
But unsigned, so it just doesn't count.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I hereby sponsor (second) Brandon Robinson's proposal, as posted to
debian-vote.The proposal had Message ID [EMAIL PROTECTED],
and was tagged with ID AA12031 by murphy.debian.org.
Thomas
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
I hereby sponsor (second) Brandon Robinson's proposal, as posted to
debian-vote.The proposal had Message ID [EMAIL PROTECTED],
and was tagged with ID AA12031 by murphy.debian.org.
I'm baffled. As I sent this mail it was signed. Here
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
I'm baffled. As I sent this mail it was signed. Here it is again.
Oh, I see now, gnus was over happily hiding the signature. Grr.
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm sure the Project Secretary wouldn't invalidate your second for spelling
my name wrong, but *I* might... :)
Oh geez, well, never mind. it's not my day.
Amidst being confused by gnus, I also was confused by a cutpaste bug
in gnome-terminal. So here is my cosponsorship again, with a
signature that should verify.
Thomas
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I hereby sponsor (second) Brandon Robinson's proposal, as posted to
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Per section A.5 (Expiry) of the constitution, I must point out that both
John Goerzen's General Resolution regarding non-free, and Anthony Towns's
amended version thereof (which per A.1.3 stands on its own as an
independent GR since John Goerzen did
Sven LUTHER [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, because you have no use for most of the stuff in non-free, it don't mean
that other people have not need of it.
People having a use for X does not imply that Debian should distribute
X.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a
Sven LUTHER [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, because you have no use for most of the stuff in non-free, it don't mean
that other people have not need of it.
People having a use for X does not imply that Debian should distribute
X.
Chester Hosey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is true, but unless you are the most fanatical of GNOME users,
konqueror could very well be good enough to replace Netscape.
Informational query: will konqueror work on Gnome in a reasonably
happy way? Netscape doesn't do any gnome magic, and in at
Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 06:24:54PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
You can't because it ain't there. The only thing the constitution says
about any of this is that the secretary may make a decision. Apparently,
that decision need
Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You can't because it ain't there. The only thing the constitution says
about any of this is that the secretary may make a decision. Apparently,
that decision need not be otherwise constitutional. I don't believe this
was intended. I don't believe
Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I would reasonably assume (obviously a mistake when dealing with
bureacracies) that if the secretary needs to make a decision, they should
interpret the constitution, not throw it out and do whatever the hell they
want.
And that's what the secretary
Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ooops! I have just been pointed out that this is not true, because of
constitution 7.1 point 3: The Secretary adjudicates any disputes
about interpretation of the constitution..
And I for one am a supported of John's resolution *and* I think that
the
Jason Gunthorpe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This may be due to www.d.o having had a disk failure, Darren will have to
check on that.
Ooh! Ooh!! Conspiracy!
;)
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
IT IS FUCKING RUDE TO QUOTE SOMEONE WITHOUT THEIR FUCKING PERMISSION!
IT IS EVEN RUDER TO CONTINUE TO QUOTE SOMEONE WHEN THEY HAVE TOLD YOU TO
STOP.
No, it isn't. Public messages in which people are rude and abusive
should be spread around as
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
IT IS FUCKING RUDE TO QUOTE SOMEONE WITHOUT THEIR FUCKING PERMISSION!
IT IS EVEN RUDER TO CONTINUE TO QUOTE SOMEONE WHEN THEY HAVE TOLD YOU TO
STOP.
No, it isn't. Public messages in which people are rude and abusive
should be spread around as
Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Wichert hasn't failed for that and this is not Wicherts fault. Don't
make it one. Wichert, Dwarf and myself were discussing things recently.
OK. Whose fault is it? What were the result of the discussions?
Thomas
701 - 793 of 793 matches
Mail list logo
