On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 21:28, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
And what is the difference between a 3:1 majority and a 3:1
super majority? If there is no difference, why can't the terms be
used interchangeably?
Using two different technical terms makes it seem like there is a
distinction. Also,
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 04:09:47 -0400, Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 21:28, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
And what is the difference between a 3:1 majority and a 3:1 super
majority? If there is no difference, why can't the terms be used
interchangeably?
Using two
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 03:29:23AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 04:09:47 -0400, Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 21:28, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
And what is the difference between a 3:1 majority and a 3:1 super
majority? If there is no
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 11:06:52 +0200, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 03:29:23AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 04:09:47 -0400, Anthony DeRobertis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 21:28, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
And what is the
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 01:37:59PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
I believe the juxtaposition is more than mere happenstance, but that
nevertheless the two documents are easily separable, are almost
invariably discussed as separate units within the project, and that they
serve distinct
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 04:53:48AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 11:06:52 +0200, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 03:29:23AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 04:09:47 -0400, Anthony DeRobertis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 13:13:21 +0200, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 04:53:48AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 11:06:52 +0200, Sven Luther
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 03:29:23AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, 14
On 2003-10-14, Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--=-+Y+8urcJMKE7MvxkX+xD
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 21:28, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
And what is the difference between a 3:1 majority and a 3:1
On Tuesday, Oct 14, 2003, at 12:37 US/Eastern, Dylan Thurston wrote:
But surely, (a) this is not a big deal, and (b) it's rather late to
fix this?
as for a, yes -- it's no big deal. As for b, the call for votes hasn't
gone out, so I guess it could be fixed. Probably not worth the effort,
Hi folks,
Here is the current incarnation.
manoj
##
Votes must be received by Tue, Oct 28 23:59:59 UTC 2003.
The following ballot is for voting on a General Resolution to amend the
Debian Constitution to
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 04:09:47 -0400, Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 21:28, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
And what is the difference between a 3:1 majority and a 3:1 super
majority? If there is no difference, why can't the terms be used
interchangeably?
Using two
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 03:29:23AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 04:09:47 -0400, Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 21:28, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
And what is the difference between a 3:1 majority and a 3:1 super
majority? If there is
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 11:06:52 +0200, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 03:29:23AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 04:09:47 -0400, Anthony DeRobertis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 21:28, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
And what is the
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 01:37:59PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
I believe the juxtaposition is more than mere happenstance, but that
nevertheless the two documents are easily separable, are almost
invariably discussed as separate units within the project, and that they
serve distinct
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 04:53:48AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 11:06:52 +0200, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 03:29:23AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 04:09:47 -0400, Anthony DeRobertis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 13:13:21 +0200, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 04:53:48AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 11:06:52 +0200, Sven Luther
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 03:29:23AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, 14
On Tuesday, Oct 14, 2003, at 05:53 US/Eastern, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
As i understand it, a majority is 50% +1, while anything else is a
super-majority. There is no such thing as a 75% majority or a 60%
majority. These are super-majorities, since they are clearly more
than a majority.
On 2003-10-14, Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--=-+Y+8urcJMKE7MvxkX+xD
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 21:28, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
And what is the difference between a 3:1 majority and a 3:1
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 12:36:57 -0400, Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
On Tuesday, Oct 14, 2003, at 05:53 US/Eastern, Manoj Srivastava
wrote:
As i understand it, a majority is 50% +1, while anything else is a
super-majority. There is no such thing as a 75% majority or a 60%
Hi guys,
Many thanks to the people who provided feedback. Here is
another _draft_ which incorporates the suggested improvements.
manoj
##
Votes must be received by Tue, Oct 28 23:59:59 UTC 2003.
This
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 04:03:15AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
__
Proposal C: Clarifies status of non-technical documents. Creates
Foundation Documents class which requires 3:1 majority to change and
includes _only_ the
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 12:59:13 +0200, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 04:03:15AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
__
Proposal C: Clarifies status of non-technical documents. Creates
Foundation
On 2003-10-13, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 04:03:15AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
__
Proposal C: Clarifies status of non-technical documents. Creates
Foundation Documents class which
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 11:09:12AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 12:59:13 +0200, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 04:03:15AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
__
Proposal C:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 11:09:12AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
There are definitely two camps about this. One camp, whose
views I subscribe to, believes that the juxtaposition is mere
happenstance; and that when the social contract talks about us
including a definition of what is
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 06:27:16PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 04:03:15AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
==
It occurs to me that there are some people who may wish to afford the
Debian Social
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 16:13:05 + (UTC), Dylan Thurston [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On 2003-10-13, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 04:03:15AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
__
Proposal C: Clarifies
Hi,
Yet another update for the ballot. I've corrected run on
sentences, removed a me from the rationale, added clarifications in
the rationale that the proposal intends the DFSG and the SC to be
considered distinct works.
manoj
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 01:37:59PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 11:09:12AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
There are definitely two camps about this. One camp, whose
views I subscribe to, believes that the juxtaposition is mere
happenstance; and that when the
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Yet another update for the ballot.
conducted in accordance with the policy delinated in Section A, Standard
s/delinated/delineated/
Other than that, looks good.
Joe
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
Hi,
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 16:43:04 -0400 (EDT), Joe Nahmias [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Yet another update for the ballot.
conducted in accordance with the policy delinated in Section A,
Standard
s/delinated/delineated/
Fixed now.
manoj
--
And so it
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 20:08:27 -0400, Aaron M Ucko [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I have a couple of typographical nits: Manoj Srivastava
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[ ] Choice 1: Proposal A [3:1 super majority needed]
[...]
these proposals require a 3:1 super-majority in order to pass (as
they
Hi folks,
Here is the current incarnation.
manoj
##
Votes must be received by Tue, Oct 28 23:59:59 UTC 2003.
The following ballot is for voting on a General Resolution to amend the
Debian Constitution to
Hi guys,
Many thanks to the people who provided feedback. Here is
another _draft_ which incorporates the suggested improvements.
manoj
##
Votes must be received by Tue, Oct 28 23:59:59 UTC 2003.
This
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 04:03:15AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
==
4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
4.1. Powers
Together, the Developers may:
1. Appoint or recall the Project
On 2003-10-13, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 04:03:15AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
__
Proposal C: Clarifies status of non-technical documents. Creates
Foundation Documents class which
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 11:09:12AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 12:59:13 +0200, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 04:03:15AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
__
Proposal C:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 11:09:12AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
There are definitely two camps about this. One camp, whose
views I subscribe to, believes that the juxtaposition is mere
happenstance; and that when the social contract talks about us
including a definition of what is
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 06:27:16PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 04:03:15AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
==
It occurs to me that there are some people who may wish to afford the
Debian Social
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 16:13:05 + (UTC), Dylan Thurston [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
On 2003-10-13, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 04:03:15AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
__
Proposal C:
Hi,
Yet another update for the ballot. I've corrected run on
sentences, removed a me from the rationale, added clarifications in
the rationale that the proposal intends the DFSG and the SC to be
considered distinct works.
manoj
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 01:37:59PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 11:09:12AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
There are definitely two camps about this. One camp, whose
views I subscribe to, believes that the juxtaposition is mere
happenstance; and that when the
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Yet another update for the ballot.
conducted in accordance with the policy delinated in Section A, Standard
s/delinated/delineated/
Other than that, looks good.
Joe
I have a couple of typographical nits:
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
equally (as long as all choices X you make fall in the range 1= X = 4).
Please space the inequality evenly (which may require moving it to the
next line). Alternatively, you could substitute [1, 4].
[ ]
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 20:08:27 -0400, Aaron M Ucko [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I have a couple of typographical nits: Manoj Srivastava
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[ ] Choice 1: Proposal A [3:1 super majority needed]
[...]
these proposals require a 3:1 super-majority in order to pass (as
they
45 matches
Mail list logo
