On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 08:45:14AM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I am asking Frederik to accept this
> > amendment, failing which, I am also seeking formal seconds for this.
>
> I would prefer that Frederik accept it, but in case he doesn't, I sec
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am asking Frederik to accept this
> amendment, failing which, I am also seeking formal seconds for this.
I would prefer that Frederik accept it, but in case he doesn't, I second
this proposal:
> ,
> | 1. We affirm that our Priorities are our
On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 10:19:40PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 16:02:11 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 10:41:24AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> > As I mentioned previously, I don't think point 3. here is the
> > compromise I
On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 04:02:11PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 10:41:24AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> > As seconder of the below proposal, which has reached enough seconds since
> > august 31, and as there where no ammendments against this proposal, i now
> > officiall
On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 02:12:29PM +1000, Anibal Monsalve Salazar wrote:
>On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 10:19:40PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>,
>>| 1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
>>| community (Social Contract #4);
>>| 2. We acknowledge that there
On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 10:19:40PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>,
>| 1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
>| community (Social Contract #4);
>| 2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress in the kernel
>| firmware issue; however, it is not
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 16:02:11 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 10:41:24AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> As I mentioned previously, I don't think point 3. here is the
> compromise I would like to see. "Without further conditions" is so
> broad that it seems
On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 10:41:24AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> As seconder of the below proposal, which has reached enough seconds since
> august 31, and as there where no ammendments against this proposal, i now
> officially call for a vote, as per section A.2 of our constitution.
>
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006, Frans Pop wrote:
>(a) Affirms that the project strives for and encourages 100 percent
>free software, including the availability of source for all types
>of files.
>(b) Resolves that the project needs more time before a decision can be
>made on h
> On Sun, Sep 24, 2006 at 10:54:34AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > I think everyone understands where I stand now, so I'll stop posting about
> > this, but my agenda in this is to ask people not to be so worried about
> > employment conflicts as to force strict barriers between Debian and the
> >
On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 06:18:37PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
>
> START OF AMENDMENT ==
>Considering that:
> (1) The current discussion about what to do with sourceless firmware
> is muddled by other discussions and time pressure because of t
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 22:46:02 +0200, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Le mardi 26 septembre 2006 à 14:33 -0500, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
>> > I like the idea, but it eliminates some choices for the
>> > voter. With this setup, it is not possible to prioritize the
>> > firmware remova
Le mardi 26 septembre 2006 à 14:33 -0500, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
> > I like the idea, but it eliminates some choices for the voter. With
> > this setup, it is not possible to prioritize the firmware removal
> > over the release, while still considering other options
> > acceptable. How would I
On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 09:02:19PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On 9/20/06, Denis Barbier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Anthony Towns [wrote]:
> > A question that has been raised is whether the
> > organisation can be sufficiently "outside" of Debian when
> > the DPL is intimately involved. I
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 20:50:08 +0200, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Le mardi 26 septembre 2006 à 11:15 -0500, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
>> > 2) joselin's : we make an indefinite exception for non-free
>> > firmware.
>>
>> This creates an exception clause to DFSG#2, and in af
On Tuesday 26 September 2006 20:40, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 06:18:37PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> > The Debian Project:
> >(a) Affirms that the project strives for and encourages 100 percent
> >free software, including the availability of source for all
> > types of
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I like the idea, but it eliminates some choices for the voter. With this
> setup, it is not possible to prioritize the firmware removal over the
> release, while still considering other options acceptable. How would I
> be able to express the following
Le mardi 26 septembre 2006 à 11:15 -0500, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
> > 2) joselin's : we make an indefinite exception for non-free firmware.
>
> This creates an exception clause to DFSG#2, and in affect
> changes the DFSG until we have other technical means to ship non-free
> firmwa
On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 06:18:37PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> The Debian Project:
>(a) Affirms that the project strives for and encourages 100 percent
>free software, including the availability of source for all types
>of files.
So, we "strive for 100% free software", whatever s
On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 11:15:39AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 14:08:14 +0200, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > There are three proposals which are actually votable on :
>
> > 1) don's : reaffirm the current social contract, and non-free
> > firmware b
I second the quoted proposal.
Frans Pop wrote:
> START OF AMENDMENT ==
> Considering that:
>(1) The current discussion about what to do with sourceless firmware
>is muddled by other discussions and time pressure because of the
>
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 18:18:37 +0200, Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Hi,
The following proposal does not seem to be related to a
position statement on the current applicability of DFSG#2, it seems
to be an independent proposal in its own right.
Reasonable people may be willi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I'm seconding the following amendment made by Frans Pop
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> START OF AMENDMENT ==
> Considering that:
>(1) The current discussion about what to do with sourceless firmware
>
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How about:
>
> [ ] DFSG #2 applies to all programmatic works
> [ ] further discussion
>
> Followed by:
> [ ] Release Etch even with kernel freeware issues
> [ ] Special exception to DFSG#2 for firmware as long as required [needs 3:1]
> [ ] fu
(Reply-to set to debian-vote.)
I'd like to propose an alternative option as an amendment to Don Armstrong's
proposal in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [1].
The reason that I submit this proposal now is the request from Don that his
proposal be split out from the other firmware related proposals and voted o
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 14:08:14 +0200, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> There are three proposals which are actually votable on :
> 1) don's : reaffirm the current social contract, and non-free
> firmware belong in non-free.
According to the proposer, this should be:
1)
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 13:56:21 +0200, Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tuesday 26 September 2006 11:49, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> I agree with Don. If this proposal is going to go to a vote, it
>> should go to a vote separately from the votes about exceptions, so
>> that we can get a clear
On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 03:14:03PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> Le mar 26 septembre 2006 14:08, Sven Luther a écrit :
> > [ ] non-free firmware can be accepted in main (josselin) (needs 3:1)
>
> this is very poorly worded, joss proposition is not that at all, it's
> about allowing firmware i
On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 03:20:52PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mardi 26 septembre 2006 à 15:04 +0200, Frank Küster a écrit :
> > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > B) we do a single ballot :
> > >
> > > [ ] non-free firmware belong in non-free (don)
> > > [ ] non-
On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 10:41:24AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hello,
>
> As seconder of the below proposal, which has reached enough seconds since
> august 31, and as there where no ammendments against this proposal, i now
> officially call fo
Le mar 26 septembre 2006 14:08, Sven Luther a écrit :
> [ ] non-free firmware can be accepted in main (josselin) (needs 3:1)
this is very poorly worded, joss proposition is not that at all, it's
about allowing firmware in main *until* a proper technical solution
exists.
and afaict Manoj never
Le mardi 26 septembre 2006 à 13:56 +0200, Frans Pop a écrit :
> On Tuesday 26 September 2006 11:49, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > I agree with Don. If this proposal is going to go to a vote, it should
> > go to a vote separately from the votes about exceptions, so that we can
> > get a clear answer to
On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 03:04:28PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > So, we have now two choices :
> >
> [...]
> > B) we do a single ballot :
> >
> > [ ] non-free firmware belong in non-free (don)
> > [ ] non-free firmware can be accepted in main
On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 01:20:12PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> So, you also agree that we need to :
> 1) first vote on the exception for etch.
> 2) in a second phase vote for what to do with non-free firmware ?
What? *Neither* of these is the subject of Don's resolution.
--
Steve Langasek
On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 02:49:29AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 11:32:59PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> > On Monday 25 September 2006 05:11, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > Baring objection, I plan on calling for a vote with a suggested balot
> > > containing only this option in a
On Tuesday 26 September 2006 11:49, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I agree with Don. If this proposal is going to go to a vote, it should
> go to a vote separately from the votes about exceptions, so that we can
> get a clear answer to the exception question without the outcome being
> tainted by either
Le mardi 26 septembre 2006 à 15:04 +0200, Frank Küster a écrit :
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > B) we do a single ballot :
> >
> > [ ] non-free firmware belong in non-free (don)
> > [ ] non-free firmware can be accepted in main (josselin) (needs 3:1)
This is not what t
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, we have now two choices :
>
[...]
> B) we do a single ballot :
>
> [ ] non-free firmware belong in non-free (don)
> [ ] non-free firmware can be accepted in main (josselin) (needs 3:1)
> [ ] make an exception for etch (frederik)
>
On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 04:34:22AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 01:20:12PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > So, you also agree that we need to :
>
> > 1) first vote on the exception for etch.
>
> > 2) in a second phase vote for what to do with non-free firmware ?
>
> W
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
As seconder of the below proposal, which has reached enough seconds since
august 31, and as there where no ammendments against this proposal, i now
officially call for a vote, as per section A.2 of our constitution.
==
On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 11:32:59PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Monday 25 September 2006 05:11, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > Baring objection, I plan on calling for a vote with a suggested balot
> > containing only this option in a few days (no later than 09-27).[1]
> > [The Secretary, of course, can o
41 matches
Mail list logo
