On Mon, 25 Sep 2006, Steve Langasek wrote:
And with my original proposal withdrawn, is it still your opinion
that this resolution warrants a vote of its own?
It's not as important anymore, but it does resolve a few of the open
how do we interpret what the DFSG says questions in regards to
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
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 ?
What?
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 the proposal
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
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 few
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 the
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 for a
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 in
-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 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
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
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-free firmware can
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 answer
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)
(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 on
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]
[ ] further
-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
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, 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 belong in
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
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:
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 files.
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 affect changes
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 don't have
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 be able
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 removal over 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 the
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
rest of
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 how
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 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 to even
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 yet
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 is a lot
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
35 matches
Mail list logo
