Hi,
OK. As I see it, there was a amendment posted
From: Osamu Aoki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Resent-Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 17:30:56 -0500 (CDT)
with the final version being in:
From: Osamu Aoki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
Sorry to follow up on myself, but I also felt that the
changes made in this reformulation were mostly cosmetic, and would
not require a resetting of the discussion period; and there have
been no objections in the 72 hours since the last second was
received.
manoj
--
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 12:24:34PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hi,
Sorry to follow up on myself, but I also felt that the
changes made in this reformulation were mostly cosmetic, and would
not require a resetting of the discussion period; and there have
been no objections in
Hi,
OK. As I see it, there was a amendment posted
From: Osamu Aoki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Resent-Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 17:30:56 -0500 (CDT)
with the final version being in:
From: Osamu Aoki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 09:44:03AM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote:
Thus this web page should be more like:
Proposal D: Rescinds the previous GR, reverting to the version 1.0 of the
social contract.
OA == Osamu Aoki [2004-5-9]
[...]
OA Thus this web page should be more like:
OA
OA Proposal D: Rescinds the previous GR, reverting to the version 1.0 of the
OA social contract.
OA This amendment deletes everything
OA == Osamu Aoki [2004-5-9]
OA On Sat, May 08, 2004 at 10:14:38AM +0200, Davide G. M. Salvetti wrote:
[...]
I more or less agree with some (actually not so many, by far not all)
of the rationales listed by Osamu.
OA Please point out if you find factual mistakes.
No, I'm not aware of
Thanks, but
On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 08:54:55PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Quoting Xavier Roche:
Yes, seconded.
Seconded as well (if really needed).
With all respect, since we need to get single version agreed, can you
second the shorter version I posted after comments from Davide G. M.
On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 01:06:00AM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote:
* Can Craig and people who seconded original proposal [2] to second
this as the formal rationale for Craig's proposal [1]?
Yes, seconded.
Craig Sanders proposed the following resolution [1] (reformatted):
Quoting Xavier Roche:
On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 01:06:00AM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote:
* Can Craig and people who seconded original proposal [2] to second
this as the formal rationale for Craig's proposal [1]?
Yes, seconded.
Seconded as well (if really needed).
Craig Sanders proposed
Thanks, but
On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 08:54:55PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Quoting Xavier Roche:
Yes, seconded.
Seconded as well (if really needed).
With all respect, since we need to get single version agreed, can you
second the shorter version I posted after comments from Davide G. M.
Hi,
On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 11:04:41AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
i originally meant delete everything but clause 1, but it really doesn't
matter. the opening paragraph is just filler fluff and it doesn't bother me
whether it is there or not. i.e. i'm happy with the amendment either way.
On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 09:44:03AM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote:
The Debian Project,
hereby resolves:
1. that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within
the General Resolution Editorial Amendments To The Social
Hi,
On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 11:04:41AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
i originally meant delete everything but clause 1, but it really doesn't
matter. the opening paragraph is just filler fluff and it doesn't bother me
whether it is there or not. i.e. i'm happy with the amendment either way.
On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 09:44:03AM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote:
The Debian Project,
hereby resolves:
1. that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within
the General Resolution Editorial Amendments To The Social
On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 01:06:00AM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote:
* Can Craig and people who seconded original proposal [2] to second
this as the formal rationale for Craig's proposal [1]?
Yes, seconded.
Craig Sanders proposed the following resolution [1] (reformatted):
Quoting Xavier Roche:
On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 01:06:00AM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote:
* Can Craig and people who seconded original proposal [2] to second
this as the formal rationale for Craig's proposal [1]?
Yes, seconded.
Seconded as well (if really needed).
Craig Sanders proposed
OA == Osamu Aoki [2004-5-7]
[...]
OA * Can Craig and people who seconded original proposal [2] to second
OA this as the formal rationale for Craig's proposal [1]?
I think that Craig's proposal should be on the ballot, therefore I
signed it.
I more or less agree with some (actually not so
On Sat, May 08, 2004 at 10:14:38AM +0200, Davide G. M. Salvetti wrote:
OA == Osamu Aoki [2004-5-7]
[...]
OA * Can Craig and people who seconded original proposal [2] to second
OA this as the formal rationale for Craig's proposal [1]?
I think that Craig's proposal should be on the ballot,
On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 12:41:50AM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote:
Hmm I had no intention to change Craig's original. What he wrote was an
incomplete sentence referencing Steve's proposal. These words slipped in
from Steve's when I tried to make a full proposal out of them. I think your
On Sat, May 08, 2004 at 10:14:38AM +0200, Davide G. M. Salvetti wrote:
Coming to the Osamu's proposed reformulation, I like Craig's original
wording much more than that. In particular I don't like that «but
recognizing that changing the Social Contract today would have grave
consequences for
On Sat, May 08, 2004 at 10:14:38AM +0200, Davide G. M. Salvetti wrote:
OA == Osamu Aoki [2004-5-7]
[...]
OA * Can Craig and people who seconded original proposal [2] to second
OA this as the formal rationale for Craig's proposal [1]?
I think that Craig's proposal should be on the ballot,
On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 12:41:50AM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote:
Hmm I had no intention to change Craig's original. What he wrote was an
incomplete sentence referencing Steve's proposal. These words slipped in
from Steve's when I tried to make a full proposal out of them. I think your
On Thu, 6 May 2004 19:10:37 -0400, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 01:06:00AM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote:
* Can Craig and people who seconded original proposal [2] to second
this as the formal rationale for Craig's proposal [1]?
There doesn't seem to be any formal
On Tue, 4 May 2004 00:16:25 +0200, Osamu Aoki [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Hi, Since Craig's proposal [1] seems to have gotten enough seconds
[2], let me summarize it while giving a new concise title and a new
thread. Excuse me if I am biased.
If you want to see this adopted as the
On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 01:06:00AM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote:
* Can Craig and people who seconded original proposal [2] to second
this as the formal rationale for Craig's proposal [1]?
There doesn't seem to be any formal requirement for rationales to be
seconded.
Personally, I don't agree
On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 01:06:00AM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote:
* Can Craig and people who seconded original proposal [2] to second
this as the formal rationale for Craig's proposal [1]?
i am happy with this version of my amendment and the rationale for it.
* Those whose name appear but not
On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 07:10:37PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 01:06:00AM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote:
* Can Craig and people who seconded original proposal [2] to second
this as the formal rationale for Craig's proposal [1]?
There doesn't seem to be any formal
On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 01:06:00AM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote:
* Can Craig and people who seconded original proposal [2] to second
this as the formal rationale for Craig's proposal [1]?
There doesn't seem to be any formal requirement for rationales to be
seconded.
Personally, I don't agree
On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 01:06:00AM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote:
* Can Craig and people who seconded original proposal [2] to second
this as the formal rationale for Craig's proposal [1]?
i am happy with this version of my amendment and the rationale for it.
* Those whose name appear but not
On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 07:10:37PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 01:06:00AM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote:
* Can Craig and people who seconded original proposal [2] to second
this as the formal rationale for Craig's proposal [1]?
There doesn't seem to be any formal
On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 12:16:25AM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote:
Hi,
Here is the list of rationale raised for this proposal:
* People can make mistake and should be allowed to correct it.
* This deserves to be an option on the ballet.
* Full impact assessment by Anthony Towns [3] revealed the
Hi,
One thing we all can agree is that there have been long and many
arguments over what SC really means and there are few camps out there
with totally different views.
On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 08:05:38PM +0200, Guido Trotter wrote:
On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 12:16:25AM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote:
On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 12:16:25AM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote:
Hi,
Here is the list of rationale raised for this proposal:
* People can make mistake and should be allowed to correct it.
* This deserves to be an option on the ballet.
* Full impact assessment by Anthony Towns [3] revealed the
Hi,
One thing we all can agree is that there have been long and many
arguments over what SC really means and there are few camps out there
with totally different views.
On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 08:05:38PM +0200, Guido Trotter wrote:
On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 12:16:25AM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote:
35 matches
Mail list logo
