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 would
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 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 second
this
Hello,
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,
Martin Schulze wrote:
Technically, if Aj is deposed, steve will be as well. And as I
said,
if Aj is retiring from dunc-tank, then Steve's position has to be
clarified in a second stage IMHO yes. Nothing has been done
against
Steve's position as DPL-Assistant, especially because
On Sun, Sep 24, 2006 at 03:07:45PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hi,
As I currently understand it, the position statement GR
regarding the project leader and Dunc-Tank has adequate numbers of
seconds; and received enough seconds on the 21st of September.
This is an
Hello,
On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 04:02:11PM -0700, Steve Langasek 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 *require* us to include firmware in main that lacks any sort of
On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 02:06:50AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 08:21:21AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Two questions here.
First, this means that this proposal needs seconds, right ? Or can Frederik
just incorporate it into his proposal ?
Frederik does have the
On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 11:36:37AM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote:
Hello,
On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 04:02:11PM -0700, Steve Langasek 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
Le mardi 26 septembre 2006 à 17:46 -0500, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
I know I'm nitpicking, but isn't this whole thread about nitpicking?
;)
I don't know about you, bit for me this thread is about
getting the right thing done, and getting the general resolutions
resolved.
I'm
On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 12:39:57PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
Frederik Schueler wrote:
this means we actually have to review all licenses before the release,
Indeed, I have been under the impression that *every* maintainer must
*always* check that *all* the files they are packaging are properly
licensed and distributable by Debian. I must have been wrong?
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
| as long as we are legally allowed to do so, and the formware is
| distributed under a DFSG free license.
This needs to be made clearer.
I assume that your intention is to say GPL'd (or otherwise DFSG-free
licensed) firmware without source is allowed, but
Le mer 27 septembre 2006 14:16, BALLABIO GERARDO a écrit :
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
| as long as we are legally allowed to do so, and the formware
| is distributed under a DFSG free license.
This needs to be made clearer.
I assume that your intention is to say GPL'd (or otherwise
Pierre Habouzit wrote:
It seems that your MUA does use neither In-Reply-To: nor References:
headers. That breaks threads and makes a lot of noise. Please change
your MUA (or MTA? as it seems that's because your mail goes through
Exchange), or stop posting here. That makes your mails
On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 11:36:37AM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote:
Hello,
On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 04:02:11PM -0700, Steve Langasek 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
On 2006-09-27, Kurt Roeckx [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 11:36:37AM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote:
2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress in the kernel firmware
issue; however, it is not yet finally sorted out;
So, what progress has been made?
All firmwarez
Hi,
I was not aware that Frederik's proposal was for the Debian
project to give carte blanche to the kernel team to distribute
whatever the upstream kernel has, even if it is a major regression in
the freedom from the kernel released in Sarge.
Indeed, not agreeing to only
Hello,
On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 12:36:56PM -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
On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 12:36:56PM -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 12:36:56PM -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 09:53:58PM +0200, Frederik Schueler 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
On 9/26/06, Denis Barbier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 09:02:19PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
I don't understand how this proposal answers the question.
One answer implied by your proposal: Dunc-tank is
grounds for removing Debian's leader, that means it
is a debian
23 matches
Mail list logo
