> > I don't know where this came from. On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 01:25:02AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > He told you. It came from <http://www.debian.org/intro/organization>.
Are you suggesting that the information didn't come from anywhere prior to appearing on that page? > > What makes you think that it's the duty of the technical committee > > chairman to step in when no one cares to talk about a vote? On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 01:28:39AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > When the antagonists have arranged themselves, are sick of arguing, > have issues the CFV's per the Constitution, and are simply waiting for > the Project Secretary to issue a ballot so they can vote? Good question. I posted to debian-vote, months ago, that I didn't think that the GR had a constitutional basis. [It's probably too much to ask that you go look it up, so: my personal belief is that the social contract is more than just a document -- it also represents an agreement between us and our users. The constitution currently leaves the responsibility for changing agreements up to our leader.] If "the antagonists" can "arrange themselves" without addressing that issue, well, I guess I think that it's an excellent thing that they're sick of arguing. > Did you even bother to read my message about why the proposals should > be regarded as expired? Yep. I think you had an excellent point, there. On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 12:13:42AM -0700, Karl M. Hegbloom wrote: > > I cannot find the technical committee public mailing list archives > > (Debian Constitution, s6.3(3)) on http://lists.debian.org. Where are > > they? On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 01:31:38AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > Because either: > > A) they have been doing nothing at all, or; > B) they would rather act out of public view, thank you very much Close. The committee hasn't been acting as a committee, because we haven't seen the need. We have been acting as individuals. I know that I, personally, have done a few things to keep issues from getting to the point where the committee would have to act on them. [This was in public view, but I didn't do anything in particular to call attention to them.] > Maybe both? After all, this is the committee that can't even see fit > to report the identities of its chairman or membership accurately on > the Debian website. Eh? Now you're saying that the information on that web page came from the committee? -- Raul
