On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 05:24:16PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 01:04:33PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
But what problem(s) are you solving, and how is this a better solution
than any of the other proposals?
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:57:14PM -0500, Branden Robinson
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:52:23AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 05:27:30PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
It is the process of voting which will enable us to measure what we want
to do. How we *act* upon that measurement is the cutting.
Yes, and making a resolution
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 01:04:33PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
But what problem(s) are you solving, and how is this a better solution
than any of the other proposals?
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:57:14PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
What's your definition of a problem?
On Thu, Jan
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 01:04:33PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
But what problem(s) are you solving, and how is this a better solution
than any of the other proposals?
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:57:14PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
What's your definition of a problem?
On Thu, Jan
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 05:24:16PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 01:04:33PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
But what problem(s) are you solving, and how is this a better solution
than any of the other proposals?
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:57:14PM -0500, Branden Robinson
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:52:23AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 05:27:30PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
It is the process of voting which will enable us to measure what we want
to do. How we *act* upon that measurement is the cutting.
Yes, and making a resolution
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 01:04:33PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
But what problem(s) are you solving, and how is this a better solution
than any of the other proposals?
What's your definition of a problem?
--
G. Branden Robinson| You are not angry with people when
Debian
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 01:04:33PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
But what problem(s) are you solving, and how is this a better solution
than any of the other proposals?
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:57:14PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
What's your definition of a problem?
In this context, I
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 12:37:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
So far, people seem to be taking the position that it will better to
first vote on whether or not we're going to move in this direction (a
super majority decision) and then, once that decision is made to focus
on the details.
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 05:27:30PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 12:37:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
So far, people seem to be taking the position that it will better to
first vote on whether or not we're going to move in this direction (a
super majority
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 01:04:33PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
But what problem(s) are you solving, and how is this a better solution
than any of the other proposals?
What's your definition of a problem?
--
G. Branden Robinson| You are not angry with people when
Debian
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 12:37:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
So far, people seem to be taking the position that it will better to
first vote on whether or not we're going to move in this direction (a
super majority decision) and then, once that decision is made to focus
on the details.
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 01:04:33PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
But what problem(s) are you solving, and how is this a better solution
than any of the other proposals?
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:57:14PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
What's your definition of a problem?
In this context, I
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 05:27:30PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 12:37:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
So far, people seem to be taking the position that it will better to
first vote on whether or not we're going to move in this direction (a
super majority
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:57:20AM -0600, Brian McGroarty wrote:
Instead of severing non-free all at once, why not try and phase it out
more progressively?
It doesn't take a wild imagination to guess that if any proposal to
remove non-free passes it will either involve or lead to some sort of
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 05:05:33PM -0800, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
So far, people seem to be taking the position that it will better to
first vote on whether or not we're going to move in this direction (a
super majority decision) and then, once that decision is made to focus
on the details.
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 05:05:33PM -0800, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:57:20AM -0600, Brian McGroarty wrote:
Instead of severing non-free all at once, why not try and phase it out
more progressively?
It doesn't take a wild imagination to guess that if any proposal to
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:57:20AM -0600, Brian McGroarty wrote:
Instead of severing non-free all at once, why not try and phase it out
more progressively?
It doesn't take a wild imagination to guess that if any proposal to
remove non-free passes it will either involve or lead to some sort of
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 05:05:33PM -0800, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
So far, people seem to be taking the position that it will better to
first vote on whether or not we're going to move in this direction (a
super majority decision) and then, once that decision is made to focus
on the details.
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 05:05:33PM -0800, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:57:20AM -0600, Brian McGroarty wrote:
Instead of severing non-free all at once, why not try and phase it out
more progressively?
It doesn't take a wild imagination to guess that if any proposal to
Instead of severing non-free all at once, why not try and phase it out
more progressively?
I would propose the next release include a package that periodically
checks what non-free packages are installed. The results would be sent
to a Debian server for statistics gathering. The user would be
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:57:20AM -0600, Brian McGroarty wrote:
I would propose the next release include a package that periodically
checks what non-free packages are installed. The results would be sent
to a Debian server for statistics gathering. The user would be
prompted to enable the
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:57:20AM -0600, Brian McGroarty wrote:
Instead of severing non-free all at once, why not try and phase it out
more progressively?
Isn't months slow enough already?
I would propose the next release include a package that periodically
checks what non-free packages are
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:57:20AM -0600, Brian McGroarty wrote:
Instead of severing non-free all at once, why not try and phase it out
more progressively?
Nobody did this until now. Why should somebody do it now? Those who'd
like to see non-free go probably don't want to 'get their hands
Andrew Suffield wrote:
One thing that we do learn from popularity-contest is that
popularity-contest doesn't work. The sample size is too small.
That's why we've made popularity-contest be installed by default for
sarge. Of course the user still has to choose whether or not to turn it
on.
--
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:57:20AM -0600, Brian McGroarty wrote:
I would propose the next release include a package that periodically
checks what non-free packages are installed. The results would be sent
to a Debian server for statistics gathering. The user would be
prompted to enable the
Instead of severing non-free all at once, why not try and phase it out
more progressively?
I would propose the next release include a package that periodically
checks what non-free packages are installed. The results would be sent
to a Debian server for statistics gathering. The user would be
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:57:20AM -0600, Brian McGroarty wrote:
Instead of severing non-free all at once, why not try and phase it out
more progressively?
Isn't months slow enough already?
I would propose the next release include a package that periodically
checks what non-free packages are
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:57:20AM -0600, Brian McGroarty wrote:
Instead of severing non-free all at once, why not try and phase it out
more progressively?
Nobody did this until now. Why should somebody do it now? Those who'd
like to see non-free go probably don't want to 'get their hands
Andrew Suffield wrote:
One thing that we do learn from popularity-contest is that
popularity-contest doesn't work. The sample size is too small.
That's why we've made popularity-contest be installed by default for
sarge. Of course the user still has to choose whether or not to turn it
on.
--
30 matches
Mail list logo
