Re: resounding nothingness
On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 09:39:36PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: I'm not sure how to proceed on this non-free issue. If no one thinks my most recent proposal is worth sponsoring, nor even criticising, Well, I've already said in the past that I think it'd be better to deal with making the text clearer separately from working out what we want to do with non-free. Particularly given you're just changing Debian(n) to Debian Main, I think it's clear that we can reasonably cope with the Social Contract as it is while keeping non-free, so there's no urgency about this change. Concurrent with this mail, I've proposed what I think we should do, which I hope is pretty simple and straightforward. I guess I should just drop it? If we decide to keep non-free, I think we should come back to the issue. FWIW, I can't say I really like the word main. It's about as hopeless as contrib is in making it obvious what it's meant to mean. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could. http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: resounding nothingness
On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 09:39:36PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: I'm not sure how to proceed on this non-free issue. If no one thinks my most recent proposal is worth sponsoring, nor even criticising, Well, I've already said in the past that I think it'd be better to deal with making the text clearer separately from working out what we want to do with non-free. Particularly given you're just changing Debian(n) to Debian Main, I think it's clear that we can reasonably cope with the Social Contract as it is while keeping non-free, so there's no urgency about this change. Concurrent with this mail, I've proposed what I think we should do, which I hope is pretty simple and straightforward. I guess I should just drop it? If we decide to keep non-free, I think we should come back to the issue. FWIW, I can't say I really like the word main. It's about as hopeless as contrib is in making it obvious what it's meant to mean. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could. http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: resounding nothingness
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 11:14:23AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 12:05:51PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: I think the problem is that you got really confusing people by changing every now and then. I agree. Maybe some clarification would be good, and once a final version is there, then make a call for a proposal. I'm a little unclear on what kind of clarification is needed. Well, maybe you could make two proposals. One with your latest small version, and the other which more clearly state stronger things about the non-free packages, like we were discussing previously. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: resounding nothingness
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 11:14:23AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: Maybe some clarification would be good, and once a final version is there, then make a call for a proposal. I'm a little unclear on what kind of clarification is needed. See Jochen's message. I echo his sentiments. Right now, I am *completely* confused. I don't remember what issues are out there, who proposed them, what the current versions are, what their status is, etc. There were several things I'd support and second, but I don't even know whether they are being considered anymore. Could the authors of the different proposals please go back, find the most recent version of your respective proposals, and repost it here, along with a status update? Thanks, John -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: resounding nothingness
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 11:00:59AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: See Jochen's message. I echo his sentiments. Right now, I am *completely* confused. I don't remember what issues are out there, who proposed them, what the current versions are, what their status is, etc. There were several things I'd support and second, but I don't even know whether they are being considered anymore. As I understand it, Branden's proposal was resubmitted by Andrew Suffield in December, in this form: http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200312/msg00044.html Andrew's December drop non-free proposal received sufficient seconds to be introduced in January. To my knowledge, Andrew has not posted a rationale for that proposal. That's where we are right now -- nothing else has been introduced. * * * * * I have also made some proposals, the most recent of which is http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200402/msg00010.html which has received no seconds. The rationale is at http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01835.html and http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200402/msg00015.html Sven has asked me to dust of an earlier proposal, which he seconded, so I suppose I should be proposing an alternative to this one that includes more specific statements about non-free. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: resounding nothingness
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 12:30:58PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: Hi, As I understand it, Branden's proposal was resubmitted by Andrew Suffield in December, in this form: http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200312/msg00044.html Andrew's December drop non-free proposal received sufficient seconds to be introduced in January. To my knowledge, Andrew has not posted a rationale for that proposal. That's where we are right now -- nothing else has been introduced. Branden's original proposal also had other changes, as far as I recall, each one with a complete rationale... Maybe that is worth consideration too! Thanks, Guido -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: resounding nothingness
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 04:05:11AM +, Scott James Remnant wrote: On Tue, 2004-02-17 at 03:52, Raul Miller wrote: On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 09:31:36PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: I am confused. Did not several people second earlier versions of your, and others', proposals? The most any proposal got was 4 seconds. Five would be needed to introduce an amendment. Really? I count 6 seconds of Andrew Suffield's proposal of Jan 10 22:01: Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kyle McMartin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Clint Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tore Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Michael Banck [EMAIL PROTECTED] Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] This was the proposal for a GR to simply remove non-free without making an amendment to the Social Contract. Yeah, but Raul's proposal is something else. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: resounding nothingness
On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 10:52:14PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 09:31:36PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: I am confused. Did not several people second earlier versions of your, and others', proposals? The most any proposal got was 4 seconds. Five would be needed to introduce an amendment. Also, while I personally think my post recent proposal is better, but it's gotten no seconds. That's certainly not enough to have it introduced. I'm somewhat ambivalent about my earlier proposals -- I think they're better than having no proposal at all, but like I said I prefer my most recent one (it's simpler and cleaner, in my opinion -- which means it's less likely to introduce some ambiguity that I've not thought through). I think the problem is that you got really confusing people by changing every now and then. Maybe some clarification would be good, and once a final version is there, then make a call for a proposal. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: resounding nothingness
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 12:05:51PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: I think the problem is that you got really confusing people by changing every now and then. I agree. Maybe some clarification would be good, and once a final version is there, then make a call for a proposal. I'm a little unclear on what kind of clarification is needed. Thanks, -- Raul
Re: resounding nothingness
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 11:14:23AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 12:05:51PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: I think the problem is that you got really confusing people by changing every now and then. I agree. Maybe some clarification would be good, and once a final version is there, then make a call for a proposal. I'm a little unclear on what kind of clarification is needed. Well, maybe you could make two proposals. One with your latest small version, and the other which more clearly state stronger things about the non-free packages, like we were discussing previously. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: resounding nothingness
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 11:14:23AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: Maybe some clarification would be good, and once a final version is there, then make a call for a proposal. I'm a little unclear on what kind of clarification is needed. See Jochen's message. I echo his sentiments. Right now, I am *completely* confused. I don't remember what issues are out there, who proposed them, what the current versions are, what their status is, etc. There were several things I'd support and second, but I don't even know whether they are being considered anymore. Could the authors of the different proposals please go back, find the most recent version of your respective proposals, and repost it here, along with a status update? Thanks, John
Re: resounding nothingness
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 11:00:59AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: See Jochen's message. I echo his sentiments. Right now, I am *completely* confused. I don't remember what issues are out there, who proposed them, what the current versions are, what their status is, etc. There were several things I'd support and second, but I don't even know whether they are being considered anymore. As I understand it, Branden's proposal was resubmitted by Andrew Suffield in December, in this form: http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200312/msg00044.html Andrew's December drop non-free proposal received sufficient seconds to be introduced in January. To my knowledge, Andrew has not posted a rationale for that proposal. That's where we are right now -- nothing else has been introduced. * * * * * I have also made some proposals, the most recent of which is http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200402/msg00010.html which has received no seconds. The rationale is at http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01835.html and http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200402/msg00015.html Sven has asked me to dust of an earlier proposal, which he seconded, so I suppose I should be proposing an alternative to this one that includes more specific statements about non-free. -- Raul
Re: resounding nothingness
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 12:30:58PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: Hi, As I understand it, Branden's proposal was resubmitted by Andrew Suffield in December, in this form: http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200312/msg00044.html Andrew's December drop non-free proposal received sufficient seconds to be introduced in January. To my knowledge, Andrew has not posted a rationale for that proposal. That's where we are right now -- nothing else has been introduced. Branden's original proposal also had other changes, as far as I recall, each one with a complete rationale... Maybe that is worth consideration too! Thanks, Guido
Re: resounding nothingness
On Tue, 2004-02-17 at 03:52, Raul Miller wrote: On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 09:31:36PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: I am confused. Did not several people second earlier versions of your, and others', proposals? The most any proposal got was 4 seconds. Five would be needed to introduce an amendment. Really? I count 6 seconds of Andrew Suffield's proposal of Jan 10 22:01: Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kyle McMartin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Clint Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tore Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Michael Banck [EMAIL PROTECTED] Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] This was the proposal for a GR to simply remove non-free without making an amendment to the Social Contract. Scott -- Have you ever, ever felt like this? Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: resounding nothingness
The most any proposal got was 4 seconds. Five would be needed to introduce an amendment. On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 04:05:11AM +, Scott James Remnant wrote: Really? I count 6 seconds of Andrew Suffield's proposal of Jan 10 22:01: I was talking about my proposals, not Andrew's. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: resounding nothingness
On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 09:39:36PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: I'm not sure how to proceed on this non-free issue. If no one thinks my most recent proposal is worth sponsoring, nor even criticising, I guess I should just drop it? [And, if no one cares to resurrect an earlier version, ...] Thanks, I am confused. Did not several people second earlier versions of your, and others', proposals? -- John
Re: resounding nothingness
On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 09:31:36PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: I am confused. Did not several people second earlier versions of your, and others', proposals? The most any proposal got was 4 seconds. Five would be needed to introduce an amendment. Also, while I personally think my post recent proposal is better, but it's gotten no seconds. That's certainly not enough to have it introduced. I'm somewhat ambivalent about my earlier proposals -- I think they're better than having no proposal at all, but like I said I prefer my most recent one (it's simpler and cleaner, in my opinion -- which means it's less likely to introduce some ambiguity that I've not thought through). -- Raul
Re: resounding nothingness
On Tue, 2004-02-17 at 03:52, Raul Miller wrote: On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 09:31:36PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: I am confused. Did not several people second earlier versions of your, and others', proposals? The most any proposal got was 4 seconds. Five would be needed to introduce an amendment. Really? I count 6 seconds of Andrew Suffield's proposal of Jan 10 22:01: Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kyle McMartin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Clint Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tore Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Michael Banck [EMAIL PROTECTED] Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] This was the proposal for a GR to simply remove non-free without making an amendment to the Social Contract. Scott -- Have you ever, ever felt like this? Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist?
Re: resounding nothingness
The most any proposal got was 4 seconds. Five would be needed to introduce an amendment. On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 04:05:11AM +, Scott James Remnant wrote: Really? I count 6 seconds of Andrew Suffield's proposal of Jan 10 22:01: I was talking about my proposals, not Andrew's. -- Raul
