On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 06:22:33PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
So, all those folks who were so sure (and I agree with you) that we
need to do something about the tone, and about the way that it puts
off women (and others too)--are you going to join me here and tell
Craig that this is
On Thursday 11 March 2004 03:18, i wrote:
Please Cc me, i'm not subscribed to this list.
No longer, i am subscribed now.
[ 1 ] Choice 2: Re-affirm support for non-free
[ ] Choice 3: Further Discussion
I apologize, i propably should have ranked this positively.
Have a nice day, martin
--
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 06:22:33PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
in a class or a conference the idiocy that provoked it would not
have happened - or, more precisely, would not have continued for
month after month.
No matter how much someone
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
tell you what - you write YOUR words however you like according to YOUR
standards, and i'll write my words according to mine.
That's funny, given that your unacceptable words were an effort to try
and tell people that they should stop talking about
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 09:42:46PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 06:22:33PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
So, all those folks who were so sure (and I agree with you) that we
need to do something about the tone, and about the way that it puts
off women (and others
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm trying to figure out if there's anything constructive I can say in
the context he's created, and I'm not coming up with any good ideas.
Yes -- this seems to be the problem with Craig.
The only thing that it takes for evil to flourish is for
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 08:37:20PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm trying to figure out if there's anything constructive I can say in
the context he's created, and I'm not coming up with any good ideas.
Yes -- this seems to be the
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 06:22:33PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Then don't swear. It's rude, it's unacceptible, and it needs to stop.
Well, you have it within your power to do what Craig asks, which he
indicates will stop him from swearing. Do you find those requests --
ie, to talk about
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
it's somehow OK for you to complain about my occasional, in-context and
grammatically-correct use of certain English words, but it is *NOT OK* for me
to make any complaint about the constant petty idiocy and pedantic spitefulness
on this list.
No,
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 06:22:33PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Then don't swear. It's rude, it's unacceptible, and it needs to stop.
Well, you have it within your power to do what Craig asks, which he
indicates will stop him from swearing. Do
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, you have it within your power to do what Craig asks, which he
indicates will stop him from swearing. Do you find those requests --
ie, to talk about real issues, not pedantic non-events -- unacceptable?
He can make whatever requests he wants, but
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 02:58:02PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Personally, I find swearing much less offensive than making things so
personal that you title threads with things like Serious problems with
Mr Troup or Why Anthony Towns is wrong. But you don't seem interested
in doing anything
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You've got a bad habit of missing the point made in an email, then
trimming it so that no one else can see the point either.
If so, it's not intentional, and please correct it.
My complaint was that you're making things personal; changing your
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 10:01:24PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
This is exactly what I mean when I say that the compromise embedded in
section 5 of the SC has broken down. That compromise allows for
non-free to be hosted on Debian, but also says it is not a part of
Debian.
Again, it
Sam Hartman wrote:
I ask you to be responsible in looking at the results of this
election. If the results make it clear that most of the voters have
made up their minds and are done with the discussion, then let the
issue rest.
I hope that the above can be one of the unwritten laws. Here in
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 06:30:03AM +, Adam Majer wrote:
I hope that the above can be one of the unwritten laws. Here in Canada,
a few years ago one of the provinces thought it would be a good idea to
separate so there was a big referendum in that province. The separatists
lost, but
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 08:47:37PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
It's impossible to enforce a STFU about it option.
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:51:49AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
similarly, it's impossible to enforce a Further Discussion option yet
it's there on the ballot.
So?
Maybe
On 2004-03-11 01:08:00 + Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
it would be nice if everyone would just shut the fuck up about it.
You first.
Fortunately, Swears like a sailor Sanders is not the most reasoned
of the keep-non-free supporters.
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
the point, for those of you to stupid to work it out for yourselves
even after being told TWICE what it is, is that it makes a very nice
suggestion that it would be good if people just shut the fuck up
about this subject. that's it.
I guess it's been
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
in a class or a conference the idiocy that provoked it would not
have happened - or, more precisely, would not have continued for
month after month.
No matter how much someone pisses you off here, it doesn't warrant the
kind of language you choose.
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 06:22:33PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
So, all those folks who were so sure (and I agree with you) that we
need to do something about the tone, and about the way that it puts
off women (and others too)--are you going to join me here and tell
Craig that this is
On Thursday 11 March 2004 03:18, i wrote:
Please Cc me, i'm not subscribed to this list.
No longer, i am subscribed now.
[ 1 ] Choice 2: Re-affirm support for non-free
[ ] Choice 3: Further Discussion
I apologize, i propably should have ranked this positively.
Have a nice day, martin
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 06:22:33PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
in a class or a conference the idiocy that provoked it would not
have happened - or, more precisely, would not have continued for
month after month.
No matter how much someone
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
tell you what - you write YOUR words however you like according to YOUR
standards, and i'll write my words according to mine.
That's funny, given that your unacceptable words were an effort to try
and tell people that they should stop talking about
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm trying to figure out if there's anything constructive I can say in
the context he's created, and I'm not coming up with any good ideas.
Yes -- this seems to be the problem with Craig.
The only thing that it takes for evil to flourish is for
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 08:37:20PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm trying to figure out if there's anything constructive I can say in
the context he's created, and I'm not coming up with any good ideas.
Yes -- this seems to be the
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 06:22:33PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Then don't swear. It's rude, it's unacceptible, and it needs to stop.
Well, you have it within your power to do what Craig asks, which he
indicates will stop him from swearing. Do you find those requests --
ie, to talk about
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
it's somehow OK for you to complain about my occasional, in-context and
grammatically-correct use of certain English words, but it is *NOT OK* for me
to make any complaint about the constant petty idiocy and pedantic
spitefulness
on this list.
No,
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 06:22:33PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Then don't swear. It's rude, it's unacceptible, and it needs to stop.
Well, you have it within your power to do what Craig asks, which he
indicates will stop him from
* Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-08 21:41]:
* Thomas Bushnell, BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040308 21:40]:
No, the keep non-free alternative does not contain any provisions
limiting future discussion. It is also at best a keep non-free for
now option.
Yes, thats the way I see it, too.
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:48:24PM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
* Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-08 11:32]:
* Gerfried Fuchs ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040308 11:25]:
Which option is: Keep it as long as it has been moved to nonfree.org
(with infrastructure) and remove it then.? I guess
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 06:29:57PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
The constitution prohibits us from making technical decisions in a GR
(that responsibility falls to those developers who do the actual
work), and we can do nothing to control the actions of an external
group, such as the proposed
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 12:14:35PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 06:55:38PM -0600, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
- - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
[ ] Choice 1: Cease active support of non-free [3:1 majority needed]
[ ]
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 04:34:17PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
NOTA should be on any call for votes, but especially any ballot that has a
Further Discussion option should also have a none of the above option
(aka the STFU about it option).
It's impossible to enforce a STFU about it
Craig Sanders wrote:
and just in case you miss the point of this message: some of us are sick to
death of this topic.
Oh, yes, indeed. It seems like people have been trying to change the
SC ever since I joined Debian.
--
Kevin Rosenberg| .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux **
It's impossible to enforce a STFU about it option.
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:51:49AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
similarly, it's impossible to enforce a Further Discussion option yet it's
there on the ballot.
So?
Maybe it would be clearer if you prefixed that with Allow for. Even
more if
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
the point is that a NOTA option is symbolic, just as Further
Discussion is symbolic. it makes it easier (when your lot brings
this up again in approx 3 months time, as will inevitably happen) to
say STFU ABOUT IT, WE ALREADY VOTED, without your lot
Sam Hartman wrote:
I ask you to be responsible in looking at the results of this
election. If the results make it clear that most of the voters have
made up their minds and are done with the discussion, then let the
issue rest.
I hope that the above can be one of the unwritten laws. Here in
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 06:55:38PM -0600, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
- - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
[ 3 ] Choice 1: Cease active support of non-free [3:1 majority needed]
[ 1 ] Choice 2: Re-affirm support for non-free
[ 2 ] Choice 3: Further
* Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-08 21:41]:
* Thomas Bushnell, BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040308 21:40]:
No, the keep non-free alternative does not contain any provisions
limiting future discussion. It is also at best a keep non-free for
now option.
Yes, thats the way I see it, too.
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:48:24PM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
* Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-08 11:32]:
* Gerfried Fuchs ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040308 11:25]:
Which option is: Keep it as long as it has been moved to nonfree.org
(with infrastructure) and remove it then.? I guess
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 06:29:57PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
The constitution prohibits us from making technical decisions in a GR
(that responsibility falls to those developers who do the actual
work), and we can do nothing to control the actions of an external
group, such as the proposed
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 12:14:35PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 06:55:38PM -0600, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
- - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
[ ] Choice 1: Cease active support of non-free [3:1 majority needed]
[ ]
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 04:34:17PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
NOTA should be on any call for votes, but especially any ballot that has a
Further Discussion option should also have a none of the above option
(aka the STFU about it option).
It's impossible to enforce a STFU about it
It's impossible to enforce a STFU about it option.
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:51:49AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
similarly, it's impossible to enforce a Further Discussion option yet it's
there on the ballot.
So?
Maybe it would be clearer if you prefixed that with Allow for. Even
more if
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
the point is that a NOTA option is symbolic, just as Further
Discussion is symbolic. it makes it easier (when your lot brings
this up again in approx 3 months time, as will inevitably happen) to
say STFU ABOUT IT, WE ALREADY VOTED, without your lot
* Debian Project Secretary [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-07 18:55]:
[ ] Choice 1: Cease active support of non-free [3:1 majority needed]
If one votes that non-free will be purged completely, from what I
understand. Right?
Which option is: Keep it as long as it has been moved to nonfree.org
* Gerfried Fuchs ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040308 11:25]:
* Debian Project Secretary [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-07 18:55]:
[ ] Choice 1: Cease active support of non-free [3:1 majority needed]
If one votes that non-free will be purged completely, from what I
understand. Right?
Which option
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 10:56:30AM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
* Debian Project Secretary [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-07 18:55]:
[ ] Choice 1: Cease active support of non-free [3:1 majority needed]
If one votes that non-free will be purged completely, from what I
understand. Right?
Hi!
Thanks, Andreas, for the Cc. Didn't mention that I am not subscribed
but I am reading answers in the archives -- though they would be delayed
then :) (no, its a real thanks this time, not sarcastic)
* Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-08 11:32]:
* Gerfried Fuchs ([EMAIL
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 11:29:38AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 10:56:30AM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
* Debian Project Secretary [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-07 18:55]:
[ ] Choice 1: Cease active support of non-free [3:1 majority needed]
If one votes that
* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040308 14:40]:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:48:24PM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
* Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-08 11:32]:
* Gerfried Fuchs ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040308 11:25]:
Which option is: Keep it as long as it has been moved to
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:16:37PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 12:09:11AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
However the GR does not require that, so nobody can depend on it.
As the implementation of an outside nonfree.org is not in the scope of
the Debian project, the GR
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:33:31PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Also, i would like to know if you (or any other we you are refering to
here) are in any way related to an exterior to debian organisation or
company or whatever, which may have a vested interest in using or in any
way being
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:48:58PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040308 14:40]:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:48:24PM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
* Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-08 11:32]:
* Gerfried Fuchs ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040308 11:25]:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 11:32:45AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
The GR is not about the next little step, but about the fundamental
decision whether we want to keep non-free, or remove it soon. In
neither case non-free is removed for sarge, so there is enough time to
get up a non-free.org if
* Anthony Towns ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040308 16:09]:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 11:32:45AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
The GR is not about the next little step, but about the fundamental
decision whether we want to keep non-free, or remove it soon. In
neither case non-free is removed for sarge,
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 11:49:07AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
No, the keep non-free alternative does not contain any provisions
limiting future discussion. It is also at best a keep non-free for
now option.
None of the alternatives contain any provisions limiting future
discussion.
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 10:56:30AM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
* Debian Project Secretary [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-07 18:55]:
[ ] Choice 1: Cease active support of non-free [3:1 majority needed]
If one votes that non-free will be purged completely, from what I
understand. Right?
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 11:49:07AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
No, the keep non-free alternative does not contain any provisions
limiting future discussion. It is also at best a keep non-free for
now option.
None of the alternatives contain
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Thomas Bushnell, BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040308 21:40]:
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No. If you are not satisfied with either text, you can vote for
further discussion. But if the keep non-free is the result of this
vote, than
Thomas == Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas We have not be taken away from work by the present
Thomas discussion, first, it's part of our work, and second,
Thomas Debian is a volunteer organization. Nobody is obliged to
Thomas be part of this discussion.
I
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 12:14:35PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
NOTA should be on any call for votes, but especially any ballot that
has a Further Discussion option should also have a none of the above
option (aka the STFU about it option).
Your proposal is a bit late, given that the CFV has
Craig Sanders wrote:
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 06:55:38PM -0600, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
- - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
[ ] Choice 1: Cease active support of non-free [3:1 majority needed]
[ ] Choice 2: Re-affirm support for non-free
[
On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 12:15:10 -0600, Graham Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 06:55:38PM -0600, Debian Project Secretary
wrote:
NOTE: The vote must be GPG signed (or PGP signed) with your key
that is in the Debian keyring.
Manoj, does signing with subkeys work now? Or do
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 06:55:38PM -0600, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
- - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
[ 3 ] Choice 1: Cease active support of non-free [3:1 majority needed]
[ 1 ] Choice 2: Re-affirm support for non-free
[ 2 ] Choice 3: Further
I find the following paragraph confusing. Is the number entered to be
between 1 and 4, or 1 and 3?
By example, if I have three options, a, b, and c, and I like a, am
ambivalent about b, and dislike c, how should I mark the three
options?
Please cc me in your reply.
Thanks,
Shaun
On Sun
* Debian Project Secretary [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-07 18:55]:
[ ] Choice 1: Cease active support of non-free [3:1 majority needed]
If one votes that non-free will be purged completely, from what I
understand. Right?
Which option is: Keep it as long as it has been moved to nonfree.org
* Gerfried Fuchs ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040308 11:25]:
* Debian Project Secretary [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-07 18:55]:
[ ] Choice 1: Cease active support of non-free [3:1 majority needed]
If one votes that non-free will be purged completely, from what I
understand. Right?
Which option
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 10:56:30AM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
* Debian Project Secretary [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-07 18:55]:
[ ] Choice 1: Cease active support of non-free [3:1 majority needed]
If one votes that non-free will be purged completely, from what I
understand. Right?
Hi!
Thanks, Andreas, for the Cc. Didn't mention that I am not subscribed
but I am reading answers in the archives -- though they would be delayed
then :) (no, its a real thanks this time, not sarcastic)
* Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-08 11:32]:
* Gerfried Fuchs ([EMAIL
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 11:29:38AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 10:56:30AM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
* Debian Project Secretary [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-07 18:55]:
[ ] Choice 1: Cease active support of non-free [3:1 majority needed]
If one votes that
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 10:45:20PM -0800, Shaun Jackman wrote:
I find the following paragraph confusing. Is the number entered to be
between 1 and 4, or 1 and 3?
Should be 1 and 3. Looks like a typo.
By example, if I have three options, a, b, and c, and I like a, am
ambivalent about b, and
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 12:09:11AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
However the GR does not require that, so nobody can depend on it.
As the implementation of an outside nonfree.org is not in the scope of
the Debian project, the GR *cannot* require this. We will try to make
sure it will happen
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:48:24PM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
Hi!
Thanks, Andreas, for the Cc. Didn't mention that I am not subscribed
but I am reading answers in the archives -- though they would be delayed
then :) (no, its a real thanks this time, not sarcastic)
* Andreas
* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040308 14:40]:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:48:24PM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
* Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-08 11:32]:
* Gerfried Fuchs ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040308 11:25]:
Which option is: Keep it as long as it has been moved to
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:16:37PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 12:09:11AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
However the GR does not require that, so nobody can depend on it.
As the implementation of an outside nonfree.org is not in the scope of
the Debian project, the GR
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:33:31PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Also, i would like to know if you (or any other we you are refering to
here) are in any way related to an exterior to debian organisation or
company or whatever, which may have a vested interest in using or in any
way being
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:48:58PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040308 14:40]:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:48:24PM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
* Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-08 11:32]:
* Gerfried Fuchs ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040308 11:25]:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 11:32:45AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
The GR is not about the next little step, but about the fundamental
decision whether we want to keep non-free, or remove it soon. In
neither case non-free is removed for sarge, so there is enough time to
get up a non-free.org if
* Anthony Towns (aj@azure.humbug.org.au) [040308 16:09]:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 11:32:45AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
The GR is not about the next little step, but about the fundamental
decision whether we want to keep non-free, or remove it soon. In
neither case non-free is removed for
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 06:55:38PM -0600, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
NOTE: The vote must be GPG signed (or PGP signed) with your key that
is in the Debian keyring.
Manoj, does signing with subkeys work now? Or do I still have to use my
primary key?
--
gram
signature.asc
Description:
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No. If you are not satisfied with either text, you can vote for
further discussion. But if the keep non-free is the result of this
vote, than _please_ don't discuss any more after that. It is decided
than, and let's get back to our work after this GR.
On Tue, 2004-03-09 at 00:55, Michael Banck wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:33:31PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Also, i would like to know if you (or any other we you are refering to
here) are in any way related to an exterior to debian organisation or
company or whatever, which may have a
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 11:49:07AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
No, the keep non-free alternative does not contain any provisions
limiting future discussion. It is also at best a keep non-free for
now option.
None of the alternatives contain any provisions limiting future
discussion.
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 10:56:30AM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
* Debian Project Secretary [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-07 18:55]:
[ ] Choice 1: Cease active support of non-free [3:1 majority needed]
If one votes that non-free will be purged completely, from what I
understand. Right?
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 11:49:07AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
No, the keep non-free alternative does not contain any provisions
limiting future discussion. It is also at best a keep non-free for
now option.
None of the alternatives contain
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Thomas Bushnell, BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040308 21:40]:
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No. If you are not satisfied with either text, you can vote for
further discussion. But if the keep non-free is the result of this
vote, than
Thomas == Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas We have not be taken away from work by the present
Thomas discussion, first, it's part of our work, and second,
Thomas Debian is a volunteer organization. Nobody is obliged to
Thomas be part of this discussion.
I
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 06:55:38PM -0600, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
- - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
[ ] Choice 1: Cease active support of non-free [3:1 majority needed]
[ ] Choice 2: Re-affirm support for non-free
[ ] Choice 3: Further
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 12:14:35PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
NOTA should be on any call for votes, but especially any ballot that
has a Further Discussion option should also have a none of the above
option (aka the STFU about it option).
Your proposal is a bit late, given that the CFV has
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
[ ] Choice 1: Cease active support of non-free [3:1 majority needed]
[ 1 ] Choice 2: Re-affirm support for non-free
[ 2 ] Choice 3: Further Discussion
- - -
Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think that is incredibly misleading. I suspect based on thought
that has gone into many of the messages on this list that man months
of time have been dedicated to this discussion.
Well, is there anyone who has been forced? I think there are people
Craig Sanders wrote:
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 06:55:38PM -0600, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
- - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
[ ] Choice 1: Cease active support of non-free [3:1 majority needed]
[ ] Choice 2: Re-affirm support for non-free
[
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 07:32:57PM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote:
Since STFU about it (or none of the above) would not be binding, I don't
see how that differs from further discussion (which, AFAICS, is not binding
either).
well, if NOTA beat FD then any attempt to revive the discussion within,
On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 12:15:10 -0600, Graham Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 06:55:38PM -0600, Debian Project Secretary
wrote:
NOTE: The vote must be GPG signed (or PGP signed) with your key
that is in the Debian keyring.
Manoj, does signing with subkeys work now? Or do
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Voting starts on Sunday, March 7 23:59:59 UTC 2004.
Votes must be received by Sunday, March 21 23:59:59 UTC 2004.
The following ballot is for voting on a General Resolution to decide
on future handling of the non-free section.
I find the following paragraph confusing. Is the number entered to be
between 1 and 4, or 1 and 3?
By example, if I have three options, a, b, and c, and I like a, am
ambivalent about b, and dislike c, how should I mark the three
options?
Please cc me in your reply.
Thanks,
Shaun
On Sun
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Voting starts on Sunday, March 7 23:59:59 UTC 2004.
Votes must be received by Sunday, March 21 23:59:59 UTC 2004.
The following ballot is for voting on a General Resolution to decide
on future handling of the non-free section.
101 - 199 of 199 matches
Mail list logo
