At 08:35 AM 11/9/00 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
"Peter" == Peter Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
4.1. Powers
Together, the Developers may:
2. Amend this constitution, provided they agree with a 3:1 majority.
On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 11:31:13AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
THE ONLY REASON IT EXPIRED WAS DUE TO YOUR OWN IRRESPONSIBILITY OR
PERSONAL BIAS.
I feel it is extremely disconcerting that our Secretary has the power
to kill any resolution he doesn't like simply by appearing to be gone
Hi,
"Buddha" == Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Buddha Proposed Rule 5.2 says that developers can change certain "Foundation
Buddha Documents" with a 3:1 majority. The first "Foundation Document"
Buddha listed is is the Debian Constitution.
Ah. My mistake. Should we just not
"CMC" == C M Connelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
CMC Given that statement, if there aren't any other documents that
CMC fall into this class, then perhaps the amendment should only say
CMC ``Foundation Document'' or, even better, simply specify the Social
CMC Contract/DFSG instead of
On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 02:39:24PM -0800, C.M. Connelly wrote:
Looking back at the main topic, I'm not convinced that it should
be possible to *modify* foundational documents. When I think
about the Social Contract/DFSG and the Debian Constitution, I tend
to compare them to the Declaration
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
"MS" = Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"CMC" = C M Connelly [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CMC Given that statement, if there aren't any other documents
CMC that fall into this class, then perhaps the amendment
CMC should only say ``Foundation
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
"BB" = Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
How about this modification?
BB4.1. Powers
BB Together, the Developers may:
BB 1. Appoint or recall the Project Leader.
BB -2. Amend this constitution, provided they agree with a 3:1
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
"AJT" = Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"CMC" = C.M. Connelly [EMAIL PROTECTED]
AJT I imagine that the declaration of independence has little
AJT legal force, unlike the constitution.
True, although the spirit of the Declaration certainly
(please don't cc me on list messages)
On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 04:59:47PM -0800, C.M. Connelly wrote:
AJT I imagine that the declaration of independence has little
AJT legal force, unlike the constitution.
AJT In contrast, the social contract and the DFSG do affect
AJT our
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
"AJT" = Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"CMC" = C.M. Connelly [EMAIL PROTECTED]
AJT (please don't cc me on list messages)
Sorry. Won't happen again.
CMC My point was that if the section on non-free software in
CMC the Social
On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 05:08:08PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
As to the social contract/dfsg issue; I think that arguably
they can be deemed to be separate documents, perchance living in the
same file by happenstance; in most correspindence since we have
refeerred to them
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
"JC" = Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
JC I agree here. Let's take this opportunity to split them.
JC List them both as foundational documents if we intend to
JC do so, but split them regardless.
Can we do that without a vote? ;-)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
"BB" = Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
BB I'm not sure you meant it, but a "2:1 majority"
BB requirement looks like a supermajority requirement --
BB twice as many supporters as opponents.
Right. 2:1 would be twice as many supporters as
So Go ahead and fork^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Never mind, you're already
trying to...
On 9 Nov 2000, John Goerzen wrote:
I am of very mixed feelings about this announcement.
"Darren O. Benham" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Per section A.5 ("Expiry") of the constitution, both John
On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 11:31:13AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
THE ONLY REASON IT EXPIRED WAS DUE TO YOUR OWN IRRESPONSIBILITY OR
PERSONAL BIAS.
hm, now where did I put the marshmallows? Just when I thought the flames
had burned out on this issue, here we go again.
--
Joseph Carter [EMAIL
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
However, by the same token, I am EXTREMELY concerned and VERY unhappy
that YOUR own IRRRESPONSIBILITY and flagrant disregard of your duties,
responsibilities, and the Constitution have put us in this mess.
John, there's no reason for shouting. it will
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hi,
After discussion on IRC, this is the joint draft of the
proposal under discussion (errors and omissions excepted; I am sure
that people shall not hesitate to correct my mistakes).
This proposal raises two issues, namely:
A) Amend
On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 01:12:22AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hi,
[ ] yes to a
[ ] no to a [ ] yes to a AND b
[ ] yes to b === [ ] yes to b alone
[ ] no to b [ ] further discussion
[ ] further
On Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 05:26:44PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Are we all now clear on why ballots must be understandable, and why
transparency of process is important?
Should we vote on the wording of the ballot before each vote ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
On Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 11:37:58PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
That's not precisely what I recall us agreeing to. I recall us agreeing to a
ballot that, I suppose, could take a form like this:
[ ] YES to Foundational Documents amendment
[ ] NO to Foundational Documents amendment
[ ] YES
Peter == Peter Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
4.1. Powers
Together, the Developers may:
2. Amend this constitution, provided they agree with a 3:1 majority.
+ 5.2 Initially, the list of foundation Documents consists
At 08:35 AM 11/9/00 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Peter == Peter Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
4.1. Powers
Together, the Developers may:
2. Amend this constitution, provided they agree with a 3:1 majority.
+ 5.2
I am of very mixed feelings about this announcement.
Darren O. Benham [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Per section A.5 (Expiry) of the constitution, both John Goerzen's General
Resolution regarding non-free, and Anthony Towns's amendment thereto, have
expired. The recent vote was conducted in
On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 01:14:55PM +0100, Sven LUTHER wrote:
On Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 05:26:44PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Are we all now clear on why ballots must be understandable, and why
transparency of process is important?
Should we vote on the wording of the ballot before
On 09-Nov-00, 08:35 (CST), Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Peter == Peter Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
4.1. Powers
Together, the Developers may:
2. Amend this constitution, provided they agree with
On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 11:31:13AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
THE ONLY REASON IT EXPIRED WAS DUE TO YOUR OWN IRRESPONSIBILITY OR
PERSONAL BIAS.
I feel it is extremely disconcerting that our Secretary has the power
to kill any resolution he doesn't like simply by appearing to be gone
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
SG = Steve Greenland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SG Both problems may be resolved by changing 5.2 to simply
SG 5.2 The Foundation Documents are the Debian GNU/Linux Social
SG Contract and the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
SG
On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 11:31:13AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
THE ONLY REASON IT EXPIRED WAS DUE TO YOUR OWN IRRESPONSIBILITY OR
PERSONAL BIAS.
hm, now where did I put the marshmallows? Just when I thought the flames
had burned out on this issue, here we go again.
--
Joseph Carter [EMAIL
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
However, by the same token, I am EXTREMELY concerned and VERY unhappy
that YOUR own IRRRESPONSIBILITY and flagrant disregard of your duties,
responsibilities, and the Constitution have put us in this mess.
John, there's no reason for shouting. it will
Hi,
Buddha == Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Buddha Proposed Rule 5.2 says that developers can change certain Foundation
Buddha Documents with a 3:1 majority. The first Foundation Document
Buddha listed is is the Debian Constitution.
Ah. My mistake. Should we just not list
CMC == C M Connelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
CMC Given that statement, if there aren't any other documents that
CMC fall into this class, then perhaps the amendment should only say
CMC ``Foundation Document'' or, even better, simply specify the Social
CMC Contract/DFSG instead of implying
On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 11:31:13AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
I am of very mixed feelings about this announcement.
No wonder. The possiblity that something might actually happen, and that
we might not have months more of tedious flamewars about procedural issues
must be very disconcerting.
Hi,
Buddha == Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Buddha Proposed Rule 5.2 says that developers can change certain Foundation
Buddha Documents with a 3:1 majority. The first Foundation Document
Buddha listed is is the Debian Constitution.
Ah. My mistake. Should we just not
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
MS = Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CMC = C M Connelly [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CMC Given that statement, if there aren't any other documents
CMC that fall into this class, then perhaps the amendment
CMC should only say ``Foundation
On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 02:39:24PM -0800, C.M. Connelly wrote:
Looking back at the main topic, I'm not convinced that it should
be possible to *modify* foundational documents. When I think
about the Social Contract/DFSG and the Debian Constitution, I tend
to compare them to the Declaration of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
BB = Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
How about this modification?
BB4.1. Powers
BB Together, the Developers may:
BB 1. Appoint or recall the Project Leader.
BB -2. Amend this constitution, provided they agree with a 3:1 majority.
(please don't cc me on list messages)
On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 04:59:47PM -0800, C.M. Connelly wrote:
AJT I imagine that the declaration of independence has little
AJT legal force, unlike the constitution.
AJT In contrast, the social contract and the DFSG do affect
AJT our day
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
AJT = Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
CMC = C.M. Connelly [EMAIL PROTECTED]
AJT (please don't cc me on list messages)
Sorry. Won't happen again.
CMC My point was that if the section on non-free software in
CMC the Social
On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 05:08:08PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
As to the social contract/dfsg issue; I think that arguably
they can be deemed to be separate documents, perchance living in the
same file by happenstance; in most correspindence since we have
refeerred to them
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
JC = Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
JC I agree here. Let's take this opportunity to split them.
JC List them both as foundational documents if we intend to
JC do so, but split them regardless.
Can we do that without a vote? ;-)
On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 05:08:08PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
As to the social contract/dfsg issue; I think that arguably
they can be deemed to be separate documents, perchance living in the
same file by happenstance; in most correspindence since we have
refeerred to them
Hi,
Buddha == Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Buddha How about placing the DSC/DFSG in Rule 2, rather than in Rule 5.2?
Buddha For a hand-diff, how about something like:
Buddha --
Buddha4.1. Powers
Buddha Together, the Developers may:
Buddha 1. Appoint or
CMC == C M Connelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
CMC I've made the following changes:
CMC1. Added a 2:1 majority requirement to issue, modify, or
CMC withdraw nontechnical policy documents.
I formally reject this change to my proposal. You shall need
to create your own
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
MS = Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CMC = C.M. Connelly [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CMC I've made the following changes:
CMC 1. Added a 2:1 majority requirement to issue, modify, or
CMCwithdraw nontechnical policy documents.
MS I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
A suggested ballot for the secretary to consider is:
- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
[ ] YES to proposal A: Foundation + issue/modify/withdraw
Amend the constitution to introduce Foundation
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
MS = Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CMC = C.M. Connelly [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CMC I've made the following changes:
CMC 1. Added a 2:1 majority requirement to issue, modify, or
CMCwithdraw nontechnical policy documents.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
BB = Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
BB I'm not sure you meant it, but a 2:1 majority
BB requirement looks like a supermajority requirement --
BB twice as many supporters as opponents.
Right. 2:1 would be twice as many supporters as
47 matches
Mail list logo
