Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On May 06, Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But no, I misspoke. I'm happy to grant the stuff in the ROM is
software, in one sense, but not in another--it can't be changed (it
isn't *soft*). For this reason, the term firmware has
On May 06, Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But no, I misspoke. I'm happy to grant the stuff in the ROM is
software, in one sense, but not in another--it can't be changed (it
isn't *soft*). For this reason, the term firmware has become
customary.
What about flash EPROM (which
On May 06, Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But no, I misspoke. I'm happy to grant the stuff in the ROM is
software, in one sense, but not in another--it can't be changed (it
isn't *soft*). For this reason, the term firmware has become
customary.
What about flash EPROM (which
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Umm, I have nothing but proprietary hardware. Never had any
non-proprietary Hardware. most people don't. Indeed, is there such
a thing as non-proprietary hardware?
Yes. It's not at *all* common, but if you have completely freely
implementable/modifiable specs for
Francesco P. Lovergine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sorry for my bad english, but that's exactly my point of view: not all
software can be truly free without a free hardware. At kernel level if
anyone would get a working system, he has to accept some compromises.
And those compromises could be
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
*Real* firmware is not software. But *real* firmware is *firm*, that
is, you can't change it easily: it's in a ROM. And nobody is asking
us to distribute it.
Now there's a bizarre twist on the idea that everything is software.
I don't know
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Umm, I have nothing but proprietary hardware. Never had any
non-proprietary Hardware. most people don't. Indeed, is there such
a thing as non-proprietary hardware?
Yes. It's not at *all* common, but if you have completely freely
implementable/modifiable specs for
Francesco P. Lovergine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sorry for my bad english, but that's exactly my point of view: not all
software can be truly free without a free hardware. At kernel level if
anyone would get a working system, he has to accept some compromises.
And those compromises could be
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
*Real* firmware is not software. But *real* firmware is *firm*, that
is, you can't change it easily: it's in a ROM. And nobody is asking
us to distribute it.
Now there's a bizarre twist on the idea that everything is software.
I don't know
On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 07:21:55AM -0400, Dale E Martin wrote:
BTW, I think it would be very very cool to have a completely free hardware
platform. I work on free EDA/CAD tools, so hopefully in some small way I
am contributing to this goal. But to argue that software cannot be truly
free
On Wed, 5 May 2004, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
I have the suspect that this choice will marginalize
Debian in respect to other distros. I'm not sure this will be a great
benefit for the free software community, at last.
What's next step? Remove non-free support at all with a new GR?
On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 11:23:27AM +0200, Xavier Roche wrote:
No, seriously. I hope that the next GR D proposal will be accepted by 3:1.
I really hope so. But I fear that the 3:1 barrier will not be reached.
You have this fear because of all the people saying that the editorial
changes proposal
On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 12:21:17PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Mon, 3 May 2004 17:28:43 +0100, Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Some other comments:
* Our Secretary seems to be under the impression that a vote must
be started within a certain period of a resolution being
On Thu, 6 May 2004 00:24:12 +1000, Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 12:21:17PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Mon, 3 May 2004 17:28:43 +0100, Ian Jackson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Some other comments:
* Our Secretary seems to be under the impression that a
On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 12:20:50AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 04:45:41PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Francesco P. Lovergine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm just saying that by a practical point of view who thinks so is
pretending that hardware is free
On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 07:21:55AM -0400, Dale E Martin wrote:
BTW, I think it would be very very cool to have a completely free hardware
platform. I work on free EDA/CAD tools, so hopefully in some small way I
am contributing to this goal. But to argue that software cannot be truly
free
On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 11:23:27AM +0200, Xavier Roche wrote:
No, seriously. I hope that the next GR D proposal will be accepted by 3:1.
I really hope so. But I fear that the 3:1 barrier will not be reached.
You have this fear because of all the people saying that the editorial
changes proposal
On Wed, 5 May 2004, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
I have the suspect that this choice will marginalize
Debian in respect to other distros. I'm not sure this will be a great
benefit for the free software community, at last.
What's next step? Remove non-free support at all with a new GR?
On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 04:45:41PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Francesco P. Lovergine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm just saying that by a practical point of view who thinks so is
pretending that hardware is free too.
No, I'm not pretending that hardware is free. It may well not
On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 12:21:17PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Mon, 3 May 2004 17:28:43 +0100, Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Some other comments:
* Our Secretary seems to be under the impression that a vote must
be started within a certain period of a resolution being
On Thu, 6 May 2004 00:24:12 +1000, Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 12:21:17PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Mon, 3 May 2004 17:28:43 +0100, Ian Jackson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Some other comments:
* Our Secretary seems to be under the impression that a
On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 12:20:50AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 04:45:41PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Francesco P. Lovergine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm just saying that by a practical point of view who thinks so is
pretending that hardware is free
On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 04:13:58PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Francesco P. Lovergine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Firmware is a component of hardware. Also processors uses microcode to
work. So, do we are wrong in calling that 'hardware'?
Real firmware is as you say. But loaded on
On Mon, 3 May 2004 23:42:20 +0200, Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
* Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040503 19:55]:
On Mon, 3 May 2004 17:28:43 +0100, Ian Jackson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I would ask all proposers and sponsors of resolutions to avoid
calling for a vote
Francesco P. Lovergine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm just saying that by a practical point of view who thinks so is
pretending that hardware is free too.
No, I'm not pretending that hardware is free. It may well not be,
which is why we don't distribute it.
Your point of view is that
On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 04:13:58PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Francesco P. Lovergine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Firmware is a component of hardware. Also processors uses microcode to
work. So, do we are wrong in calling that 'hardware'?
Real firmware is as you say. But loaded on
I'm just saying that by a practical point of view who thinks so is
pretending that hardware is free too. Your point of view is that firmware
is software. Ok, that's also true for all the hardware you are using. I'm
not so sure that any GPL program can be used along with a program
(hardware)
On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 10:56:20AM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
I'm just saying that by a practical point of view who thinks so is
pretending that hardware is free too. Your point of view is that
firmware is software. Ok, that's also true for all the hardware
you are using.
This seems
On Mon, 3 May 2004 23:42:20 +0200, Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
* Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040503 19:55]:
On Mon, 3 May 2004 17:28:43 +0100, Ian Jackson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I would ask all proposers and sponsors of resolutions to avoid
calling for a vote
On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 06:45:11PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
(The reason I say *old or new* is because the old one applied the DFSG
to all software, and labelling a piece of software firmware doesn't
make it any less software, for the same reason that calling a dog's
tail a leg
Well, there's certainly a lot of hot air. And the situation is rather
unfortunate.
It seems to me that:
* The social contract as amended is unambiguous, and prevents the
release of sarge as-is.
Therefore:
* The Developers must decide whether to waive or amend the social
contract. If
On Mon, 3 May 2004 17:28:43 +0100, Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
* Since we are in something of a hurry, and there will be time to
clarify the situation at more length later, IMO any grandfather
resolution authorising the release of sarge should be as short as
possible. IMO
Francesco P. Lovergine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Firmware is a component of hardware. Also processors uses microcode to
work. So, do we are wrong in calling that 'hardware'?
Real firmware is as you say. But loaded on demand is not a
component of hardware any longer.
Again, the separation
* Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040503 19:55]:
On Mon, 3 May 2004 17:28:43 +0100, Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I would ask all proposers and sponsors of resolutions to avoid
calling for a vote before reaching consensus on the wording of a
resolution.
As
On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 06:45:11PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
(The reason I say *old or new* is because the old one applied the DFSG
to all software, and labelling a piece of software firmware doesn't
make it any less software, for the same reason that calling a dog's
tail a leg
Well, there's certainly a lot of hot air. And the situation is rather
unfortunate.
It seems to me that:
* The social contract as amended is unambiguous, and prevents the
release of sarge as-is.
Therefore:
* The Developers must decide whether to waive or amend the social
contract. If
On Mon, 3 May 2004 17:28:43 +0100, Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
* Since we are in something of a hurry, and there will be time to
clarify the situation at more length later, IMO any grandfather
resolution authorising the release of sarge should be as short as
possible. IMO
* Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040503 19:55]:
On Mon, 3 May 2004 17:28:43 +0100, Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I would ask all proposers and sponsors of resolutions to avoid
calling for a vote before reaching consensus on the wording of a
resolution.
As
Francesco P. Lovergine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Firmware is a component of hardware. Also processors uses microcode to
work. So, do we are wrong in calling that 'hardware'?
Real firmware is as you say. But loaded on demand is not a
component of hardware any longer.
Again, the separation
Hi,
I think this is very interesting and tells us that when we push limit of
the freedom, we need to be careful about its consequences.
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 09:18:02PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004, Stephen Frost wrote:
entirely opposed to it either. Especially if
Jason == Jason Gunthorpe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jason Pretty much everything has embedded 'firmware' of one kind
Jason or anyother. Sometimes you don't see it, because it is in
Jason flash or ROM'd into the chip. Though, often it ends up in
Jason a driver primarily to save
On Mon, 03 May 2004, Osamu Aoki wrote:
In historic sense, when the SC was drawn, these firmwares were
outside of software which we wanted to keep 100% free. So if we
reactivate old one, we may not face this issue for good according to
the resolution made in 1997.
Merely reverting to the old
Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, he isn't. He's attempting to be pragmatic and promoting the idea of
having a useful distribution over a one which wouldn't be.
So in this hypothetical world, one in which a free operating system is
impossible, we will either stop using computers or
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Merely reverting to the old SC will keep intact the ambiguity[1]
surrounding what is and is not software.
Yes, but downloadable programs were never an ambiguous case.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe.
On Mon, 03 May 2004 10:02:34 +1000, Brian May [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Jason == Jason Gunthorpe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jason Pretty much everything has embedded 'firmware' of one kind
Jason or anyother. Sometimes you don't see it, because it is in
Jason flash or ROM'd into the chip. Though,
Hi,
I think this is very interesting and tells us that when we push limit of
the freedom, we need to be careful about its consequences.
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 09:18:02PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004, Stephen Frost wrote:
entirely opposed to it either. Especially if
Osamu Aoki [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In historic sense, when the SC was drawn, these firmwares were outside of
software which we wanted to keep 100% free. So if we reactivate old
one, we may not face this issue for good according to the resolution
made in 1997.
Why on earth? You are saying
Jason == Jason Gunthorpe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jason Pretty much everything has embedded 'firmware' of one kind
Jason or anyother. Sometimes you don't see it, because it is in
Jason flash or ROM'd into the chip. Though, often it ends up in
Jason a driver primarily to save
On Mon, 03 May 2004, Osamu Aoki wrote:
In historic sense, when the SC was drawn, these firmwares were
outside of software which we wanted to keep 100% free. So if we
reactivate old one, we may not face this issue for good according to
the resolution made in 1997.
Merely reverting to the old
* Thomas Bushnell, BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Osamu Aoki [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In historic sense, when the SC was drawn, these firmwares were outside of
software which we wanted to keep 100% free. So if we reactivate old
one, we may not face this issue for good according to the
Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, he isn't. He's attempting to be pragmatic and promoting the idea of
having a useful distribution over a one which wouldn't be.
So in this hypothetical world, one in which a free operating system is
impossible, we will either stop using computers or
Brian May [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So, as far as Debian is concerned, if the firmware is on a ROM or
otherwise hard-coded in the hardware its OK; However it is not OK if
the firmware has to be distributed with the software?
Debian doesn't distribute non-free software at all, in either case.
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Merely reverting to the old SC will keep intact the ambiguity[1]
surrounding what is and is not software.
Yes, but downloadable programs were never an ambiguous case.
On Mon, 03 May 2004 10:02:34 +1000, Brian May [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Jason == Jason Gunthorpe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jason Pretty much everything has embedded 'firmware' of one kind
Jason or anyother. Sometimes you don't see it, because it is in
Jason flash or ROM'd into the chip. Though,
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 01:41:37PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
No, perhaps you are right. But asking for a reasonable time to
implement the changes in the social contract does not requires
rescinding and restoring the social contract amendments; it could
Theodore Ts'o [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
All three adjectives: excellent, free, and operating, are
non-negotiable. We will not sell out the second because you want us
to think it's a disaster if one or two fonts don't meet it.
Excellent, free, operating --- but we may never get around to
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 10:46:32PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
But it *is* released. Your claim was that all the fonts would have to
disappear. Actually, no, you haven't substantiated that.
Well, there is certainly a double-standard going on about fonts.
People have argued that since
Theodore Ts'o [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, there is certainly a double-standard going on about fonts.
People have argued that since there exists open source tools for
editing fonts, font files should be considered their own source, even
if Font Foundries have their own preferred source
Quoting Theodore Ts'o [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
If we are going to claim that firmware requires source, and that by
the terms of the ammended Social Contract, all works in Debian require
source, then either both can be in Debian, or neither can be Debian,
or we are using double standards depending
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 12:11:03AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
We do not have a definition of source code in the DFSG. You wanted
to import the GPL's definition, and that's a bug.
The DFSG explicitly mentions the GPL, BSD and Artistic licenses as
examples of licenses that satisfy its
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 12:11:03AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
But for a font, the ability to tweak the bitmap might well be, because
there is nothing more to a rendered font than the bitmap; for a
binary program, there is a logical structure to the instructions which
it is
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 12:11:03AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
We do not have a definition of source code in the DFSG. You wanted
to import the GPL's definition, and that's a bug.
The DFSG explicitly mentions the GPL, BSD and Artistic licenses
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 10:47:09PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
[...] This is a hole in the constituition.
(Admittedly, somewhat smaller than the one that allows less than 4% of
the developers to change the social contract.)
It's not the constitution that allows that, it's the remaining 96%
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 03:07:47 +1000, Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
The Debian system, ie the main section the current stable release,
is modified by making point releases and major releases. If we want
to make it comply with the new social contract we need to modify it,
and the way to
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 01:47:07PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I don't see any particular problems with taking as long as it takes
to update the Debian system to conform to the new social contract,
although obviously I'm disappointed that that looks like taking
longer than a few weeks.
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 10:46:32PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Your ability to spread FUD as an excuse for giving up ideals of free software
is well known,
cutting off your nose to spite your face is NOT, contrary to your
opinion, one of the ideals of free software.
that's just insane
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 10:46:32PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Your ability to spread FUD as an excuse for giving up ideals of free software
is well known,
cutting off your nose to spite your face is NOT, contrary to your
opinion, one of
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 02:41:50PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
No, perhaps you are right. But asking for a reasonable time to
implement the changes in the social contract does not requires
rescinding and restoring the social contract amendments; it could
just be a statement of
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But it probably is a good idea to characterize:
[1] What we think is most important to accomplish,
[2] How we think that should be accomplished
before getting into the specifics of the language which implements
these ideas.
I normally hate me too
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 01:41:37PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
No, perhaps you are right. But asking for a reasonable time to
implement the changes in the social contract does not requires
rescinding and restoring the social contract amendments; it could
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 09:08:00AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Theodore Ts'o [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Personally, I'm still trying to decide myself what is going to happen
with Debian. Is it a bunch of fanatics who are more interested in
philosophy than technology, in which case
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 10:00:17PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
The issue is actually more complex because of the non-free section of
the distribution. The pragmatists will simply use that one. People
like me who suffer from a mild form of Free Software Extremism are
those who are losing
Theodore Ts'o [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
All three adjectives: excellent, free, and operating, are
non-negotiable. We will not sell out the second because you want us
to think it's a disaster if one or two fonts don't meet it.
Excellent, free, operating --- but we may never get around to
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 10:46:32PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
But it *is* released. Your claim was that all the fonts would have to
disappear. Actually, no, you haven't substantiated that.
Well, there is certainly a double-standard going on about fonts.
People have argued that since
Theodore Ts'o [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, there is certainly a double-standard going on about fonts.
People have argued that since there exists open source tools for
editing fonts, font files should be considered their own source, even
if Font Foundries have their own preferred source
Quoting Theodore Ts'o [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
If we are going to claim that firmware requires source, and that by
the terms of the ammended Social Contract, all works in Debian require
source, then either both can be in Debian, or neither can be Debian,
or we are using double standards depending
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 12:11:03AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
We do not have a definition of source code in the DFSG. You wanted
to import the GPL's definition, and that's a bug.
The DFSG explicitly mentions the GPL, BSD and Artistic licenses as
examples of licenses that satisfy its
* Thomas Bushnell, BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
For binary programs, the ability to edit the file with binhex is *not*
an ability to usefully or constructively modify the thing.
Certainly in some cases binhex gives an ability to usefully or
constructively modify firmware. Especially if the
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 12:11:03AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
But for a font, the ability to tweak the bitmap might well be, because
there is nothing more to a rendered font than the bitmap; for a
binary program, there is a logical structure to the instructions which
it is
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 12:11:03AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
We do not have a definition of source code in the DFSG. You wanted
to import the GPL's definition, and that's a bug.
The DFSG explicitly mentions the GPL, BSD and Artistic licenses
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 10:47:09PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
[...] This is a hole in the constituition.
(Admittedly, somewhat smaller than the one that allows less than 4% of
the developers to change the social contract.)
It's not the constitution that allows that, it's the remaining 96%
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 01:47:07PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I don't see any particular problems with taking as long as it takes
to update the Debian system to conform to the new social contract,
although obviously I'm disappointed that that looks like taking
longer than a few weeks.
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 14:23:20 -0500, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 01:47:07PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I don't see any particular problems with taking as long as it
takes to update the Debian system to conform to the new social
contract, although
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
No, perhaps you are right. But asking for a reasonable time to
implement the changes in the social contract does not requires
rescinding and restoring the social contract amendments; it could
just be a statement of purpose, a working guide to the change,
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 10:46:32PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Your ability to spread FUD as an excuse for giving up ideals of free software
is well known,
cutting off your nose to spite your face is NOT, contrary to your
opinion, one of the ideals of free software.
that's just insane
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 10:46:32PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Your ability to spread FUD as an excuse for giving up ideals of free
software
is well known,
cutting off your nose to spite your face is NOT, contrary to your
opinion, one
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 02:41:50PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
No, perhaps you are right. But asking for a reasonable time to
implement the changes in the social contract does not requires
rescinding and restoring the social contract amendments; it could
just be a statement of
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But it probably is a good idea to characterize:
[1] What we think is most important to accomplish,
[2] How we think that should be accomplished
before getting into the specifics of the language which implements
these ideas.
I normally hate me too
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 11:43:05AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 20:22:27 +1000, Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Perhaps for our next GR, we can contemplate whether it's appropriate
that less than 20% of the developers is enough to change one of our
most
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 12:55:20AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
But if there are any pragamatists who haven't left in disgust, you
should speak out, lest the Knights Lunar demonstrate that they really
are all that's left of Debian developer community.
Ted, don't forget that the pragmatists will
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 04:02:47PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
Of course you're right and everybody should have read the GR that you
did indeed send to d-d-a three times. However you must concede that some
people ignored the issue based on the subject of the CFV message alone,
and that some
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 05:51:03PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 22:56:43 +0100, Mark Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 10:09:06PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
I don't believe that the GR had a misleading title. It were
editorial changes after
Quoting Marc Haber [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
You are also ignoring the fact that most non-native English speaking
DDs might be able to read and write technical English very well, but
nevertheless might have difficulties in understanding all implications
of a screenful of legalese.
Yes, we should
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 10:50:35AM +0200, W. Borgert wrote:
Quoting Marc Haber [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
You are also ignoring the fact that most non-native English speaking
DDs might be able to read and write technical English very well, but
nevertheless might have difficulties in understanding
Quoting Marc Haber [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 10:50:35AM +0200, W. Borgert wrote:
Yes, we should have all legal stuff, like GRs, first translated in DDs
native languages first. And checked by a certified, sworn translator.
Otherwise people like me are more or less excluded
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 04:02:47PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 11:43:05AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 20:22:27 +1000, Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Perhaps for our next GR, we can contemplate whether it's appropriate
that less than
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 01:08:05PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 04:02:47PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
No, you need 46 people and only three quarters of them need agree.
That is less than 4% of our developer community.
(My mistake; each valid option must have at
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 10:36:05PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
That's a mischaracterisation. You also need *all* the other developers
to be absent or apathetic.
Apparently not difficult to arrange, if you dress it up as something
mundane and technical in a language foreign to many of our
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 22:15:48 +1000, Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Of course you're right and everybody should have read the GR that
you did indeed send to d-d-a three times. However you must
concede that some people ignored the issue based on the subject
of the CFV message
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 09:53:04AM -0400, Buddha Buck wrote:
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
[bad stuff]
I don't like Manoj's tone in this thread. It's harsh, accusatory, and
somewhat rude. It seems like he is reacting defensively, as if he feels
people are blaming him for the results they don't
1 - 100 of 332 matches
Mail list logo
