On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 06:33:01PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
Jordi Mallach wrote:
On Thu, Jun 29, 2000 at 10:32:23PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
The requisite discussion period having been entertained, I therefore
formally call for a vote on this topic, on the Resolution which I
AT == Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
AT On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 06:33:01PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
Jordi Mallach wrote: On Thu, Jun 29, 2000 at 10:32:23PM -0500,
John Goerzen wrote: The requisite discussion period having
been entertained, I therefore
On Thu, Aug 24, 2000 at 01:07:28PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
[snip]
I vote for you, but I want your hallucinogens! :-)
bye
--
Christian Surchi | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
FLUG: http://www.firenze.linux.it | Debian GNU/Linux: http://www.debian.org
-
Jordi Mallach wrote:
On Thu, Jun 29, 2000 at 10:32:23PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
The requisite discussion period having been entertained, I therefore
formally call for a vote on this topic, on the Resolution which I
originally posted on June 7, 2000, a copy of which is included below.
On 23-Aug-00, 11:33 (CDT), Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jordi Mallach wrote:
On Thu, Jun 29, 2000 at 10:32:23PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
The requisite discussion period having been entertained, I therefore
formally call for a vote on this topic, on the Resolution which I
The real reason is that Gecko has just been extremely busy. He'll
plan to do it soon.
-- John
Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 01:49 PM 8/23/00 -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
I just assumed the proposal originator decided it wasn't going to
pass anyway and let's just spare the
Jordi Mallach wrote:
On Thu, Jun 29, 2000 at 10:32:23PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
The requisite discussion period having been entertained, I therefore
formally call for a vote on this topic, on the Resolution which I
originally posted on June 7, 2000, a copy of which is included below.
On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 06:33:01PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
Jordi Mallach wrote:
On Thu, Jun 29, 2000 at 10:32:23PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
The requisite discussion period having been entertained, I therefore
formally call for a vote on this topic, on the Resolution which I
On 23-Aug-00, 11:33 (CDT), Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jordi Mallach wrote:
On Thu, Jun 29, 2000 at 10:32:23PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
The requisite discussion period having been entertained, I therefore
formally call for a vote on this topic, on the Resolution which I
Martin Schulze wrote:
Jordi Mallach wrote:
Nearly 3 months later, a question disturbs me.
When are we going to vote on this?!
No vote, just rm.
$ man rm
NAME
rm - remove files or directories
-
remove the proposal?
remove non-free files?
I just assumed the proposal originator
At 01:49 PM 8/23/00 -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
I just assumed the proposal originator decided it wasn't going to
pass anyway and let's just spare the project the agony of going
through it. Just speculation on my part. Seemed like a good
decision if that was the case.
My interpretation
The real reason is that Gecko has just been extremely busy. He'll
plan to do it soon.
-- John
Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 01:49 PM 8/23/00 -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
I just assumed the proposal originator decided it wasn't going to
pass anyway and let's just spare the
On Thu, Jun 29, 2000 at 10:32:23PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
The requisite discussion period having been entertained, I therefore
formally call for a vote on this topic, on the Resolution which I
originally posted on June 7, 2000, a copy of which is included below.
Nearly 3 months later, a
On Wed, Jul 19, 2000 at 08:27:43PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Wed, Jul 19, 2000 at 03:19:38AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Non sequitur.
If you must reply to every post, at least try to add something
besides frivolous one-liners. They don't suit you at all.
Hmm, I always thought my
On Wed, Jul 19, 2000 at 03:19:38AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Jul 13, 2000 at 09:04:37PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Thu, Jun 29, 2000 at 10:32:23PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
E. That the disposition of the non-free areas in historical, released,
and frozen Debian
On Thu, Jun 29, 2000 at 10:32:23PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
E. That the disposition of the non-free areas in historical, released,
and frozen Debian Distrubutions and archives shall be determined per
the Debian Constitution.
Are you suggesting that we remove non-free and contrib from
past
On Fri, Jul 07, 2000 at 08:36:57AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
(this is probably a mistake but i'm breaking my rule of not responding
to the stupid things you say because the stupidity level in your message
is particularly annoying)
On Wed, Jul 05, 2000 at 10:08:18PM -0700, Joseph Carter
On Wed, Jul 05, 2000 at 04:05:37PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
This is the same as the old Who does Debian Admin answer to? thread.
It seems more like the I don't want this to happen, so I will be a
rules lawyer thread to me.
Well, not that anybody asked me (because they didn't) but as I see
Joey == Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Joey So we issue DFSG v2, a new document that just happens to include the
Joey text of DFSG v1 verbatim, except for oner paragraph.
I think that is what should be done in any case, if this GR
passes. We leave the DFSG around (since other
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Joey == Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Joey So we issue DFSG v2, a new document that just happens to include the
Joey text of DFSG v1 verbatim, except for oner paragraph.
I think that is what should be done in any case, if this GR
passes. We leave the
(this is probably a mistake but i'm breaking my rule of not responding
to the stupid things you say because the stupidity level in your message
is particularly annoying)
On Wed, Jul 05, 2000 at 10:08:18PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
Well, not that anybody asked me (because they didn't) but as I
Craig Sanders wrote:
the facts do support what i say. the debian constitution states what
documents may be created or modified by vote, yet fails to mention that
either the social contract or the DFSG may be so modified.
what this means is that you can't call for a vote to change either of
On 05-Jul-00, 16:54 (CDT), Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Craig Sanders wrote:
the facts do support what i say. the debian constitution states what
documents may be created or modified by vote, yet fails to mention that
either the social contract or the DFSG may be so modified.
On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, Steve Greenland wrote:
However:
4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
4.1. Powers
Together, the Developers may:
[**snip**]
5.Issue nontechnical policy documents and
Adam Heath wrote:
Issue, but doesn't say a thing about modifying preexisting documents and
statements.
So we issue DFSG v2, a new document that just happens to include the
text of DFSG v1 verbatim, except for oner paragraph.
This is the same as the old Who does Debian Admin answer to? thread.
On Wed, Jul 05, 2000 at 05:56:37PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, Steve Greenland wrote:
5.Issue nontechnical policy documents and statements.
Issue, but doesn't say a thing about modifying preexisting documents and
statements.
precisely. if we end up deciding that these
On Mon, Jul 03, 2000 at 04:06:41PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
On Thu, Jun 29, 2000 at 10:32:03PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
The requisite discussion period having been entertained, I therefore
formally call for a vote on this topic, on the Resolution which I
originally posted on June 7,
On Thu, Jun 29, 2000 at 10:32:03PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
The requisite discussion period having been entertained, I therefore
formally call for a vote on this topic, on the Resolution which I
originally posted on June 7, 2000, a copy of which is included below.
your CFV is
On Mon, Jul 03, 2000 at 04:06:41PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
On Thu, Jun 29, 2000 at 10:32:03PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
The requisite discussion period having been entertained, I therefore
formally call for a vote on this topic, on the Resolution which I
originally posted on June 7,
John Goerzen writes:
Matthew Vernon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The requisite discussion period having been entertained, I therefore
formally call for a vote on this topic, on the Resolution which I
originally posted on June 7, 2000, a copy of which is included below.
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
your CFV is unconstitutional because nothing in the consitution allows
the Social Contract or DFSG to be amended.
pragmatism
Nothing in the constitution specifically says that Craig Sanders can
post to debian-vote, so your e-mail is unconstitutional.
Matthew Vernon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I really don't know, but as it's not mine and as I do not support it,
I don't think I should be calling for votes on it.
AIUI, the GR and Ammendment both have to be voted on at the same time,
so your CFV has to refer to the Ammendment as well?
On Mon, Jul 03, 2000 at 10:26:18AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
your CFV is unconstitutional because nothing in the consitution allows
the Social Contract or DFSG to be amended.
pragmatism
Nothing in the constitution specifically says that Craig
Matthew Vernon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The requisite discussion period having been entertained, I therefore
formally call for a vote on this topic, on the Resolution which I
originally posted on June 7, 2000, a copy of which is included below.
Shouldn't we be voting on the
John Goerzen writes:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The requisite discussion period having been entertained, I therefore
formally call for a vote on this topic, on the Resolution which I
originally posted on June 7, 2000, a copy of which is included below.
Shouldn't we
John Goerzen writes:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The requisite discussion period having been entertained, I therefore
formally call for a vote on this topic, on the Resolution which I
originally posted on June 7, 2000, a copy of which is included below.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The requisite discussion period having been entertained, I therefore
formally call for a vote on this topic, on the Resolution which I
originally posted on June 7, 2000, a copy of which is included below.
Resolved:
A. That the Debian Social
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The requisite discussion period having been entertained, I therefore
formally call for a vote on this topic, on the Resolution which I
originally posted on June 7, 2000, a copy of which is included below.
Resolved:
A. That the Debian Social
38 matches
Mail list logo
