Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted from wonderland.linux.it:
No, it's because they really do not believe this to be a problem, like
everybody else but a few people polluting debian-legal.
I note that several of those supporting the current source code
requirement for main don't post much to
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...] This GR is a position statement, not an amendment to the
foundation documents, which means a couple of things. [...]
As I understand it, this proposal seeks to exempt parts of debian
from part of the DFSG. Why is that not an amendment to the foundation
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think it's reasonable to refuse to ship non-free code when there's
actually a choice or when it's likely to provide an incentive to
implement a free version. But right now, I don't see any evidence that
refusing to ship non-free firmware will do anything
Adrian von Bidder [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[... Debian auditor ...]
I'm just wondering a bit if this all is a good idea. [...]
don't really understand why this is immediately translated into building a
bureaucracy around it. [...]
As I understand it, the oversight has been provided until now by the
Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Organisations holding assets in trust for Debian should
undertake reasonable obligations for the handling of such
assets.
As an example of best practice at the time of writing,
SPI have made the following undertakings:
Needless
Lars Wirzenius [EMAIL PROTECTED]
bad re-interpretations to make it mean something else, like the attempt
to make only the SPI be able to hold assets for Debian that we've seen
in recent times, which makes use of an ambiguity in the wording of the
constitution.)
I agree that the constitution
Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+ It would be preferable if the organizations holding assets in
+ trust for Debian undertake certain obligations for the handling of
+ such assets, as an example:
[...]
You're right
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+ It would be preferable if the organizations holding assets in
+ trust for Debian undertake certain obligations for the handling of
+ such assets, as an example:
It seems strange to use a conditional with no condition.
I suggest:
+ It is preferred
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think it would be better to formulate a requirement that it must be a
not-for-profit organization, but leave the choice on the tax-beneficial
status to the people doing the actual organization.
I think there are many benefits from being a tax-beneficial
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 07:27:08AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: [...]
Which countries can have no suitable organisations?
I don't know, but I don't want to gamble on it not being an issue.
I've looked into this in the past and every example country
suggested
Martin Wuertele [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In some countries like e.g. Austria it is quite difficult to get the
tax-deductable status for donations while it is fairly easy to get tax
exumption for them.
Then I think going tax-exempt would be adequate in Austria.
If a company holds money on
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The DPL could 'unvet' the first one and then vet the second one. [...]
Even if it was vetted and failed, it was still vetted, unless there's
time travel. I suggest that the vetting limit wouldn't make sense.
The point of the exercise is to avoid having
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Err, Would Evil DPL actually pay that much attention to the
constitution?
Probably not, but who would hold them to the constitution?
Or would the constitution be rewritten to match DPL actions
after they've been actively working against its
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
How about simplifying the strictures in the constitution to
something like this:
That seems a substantial power transfer to the DPL, with the related loss
of scrutiny. It may not cause problems now, but it's quite a bet on
the financial prudence of
Joe Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Money means currency. Like with currency, plurals are not used to indicate
the amount of the currency. However, when when talking about multiple types
of currency (multiple types of money) you do use the plural.
Not necessarily multiple currencies, but any amounts
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 4/12/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I keep asking why some people claim that the FDL wasn't drafted to
prohibit all copy-control measures, as that seems to be a crucial
question in this, and nobody answered yet AFAICT.
You might claim
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 4/11/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nevertheless, neither of us would be made happy by a detailed
repeat of it on -vote. You'd remain unconvinced and I'd be
annoyed by the lost time.
Your comment, here, does not agree with the meaning conveyed
Raul Miller wrote:
I was not convinced by this rebuttal.
Nevertheless, neither of us would be made happy by a detailed
repeat of it on -vote. You'd remain unconvinced and I'd be
annoyed by the lost time.
Furthermore, I'm not sure what issue(s) you feel references are needed
on.
The drafters'
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 4/7/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I keep asking why some people claim that the FDL wasn't drafted to
prohibit all copy-control measures, as that seems to be a crucial
question in this, and nobody answered yet AFAICT.
Power switches can be used
On 1916-3.820-5.730(4sf), Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[So a GR can state that pi=3,]
No.
Language, and interpretation thereof, is not an exact science. Math is.
The representation of maths is not much more exact than language
in some ways. Two half-daft observations from a
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 09:04:35AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
At the end of DFSG #2, the following text should be added:
The license may restrict distribution to some kinds of media if
it is still possible to distribute the source code
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This formulation is better in one sense, as it avoids licenses being too
restrictive. However it tangles the DFSG with the current media we are
distributing our packages on, and I don't like that much.
It seems likely that we will have an online archive and
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
GFDL (relating to the can't chmod a document and can't distribute a
transparent copy separately) -- it might be fair to be strict about that,
because we've been bitten by not being strict in the past on issues such
as the pine license, but otoh, there's
Zephaniah E. Hull [EMAIL PROTECTED]
During the debate you made a number of assertions about a number of
others running for DPL, specificly alleging that you had specific
evidence of religious discrimination.
After specificly accusing Jeroen van Wolffelaar of this he asked for
specific
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
No need - Mark Ray did so earlier in the week.
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but I think
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/03/msg00269.html
was disliked, because there was a sudden surge in posting
frequency, which many people do when
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/01/msg00968.html
For those who can't read -private, Andrew's claims are untrue -
objections are voiced due to the manner in which Andrew voiced his
beliefs, not the beliefs in and of themselves.
The
Benjamin Seidenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Say (said, saying, says):
2. To express in words: Say what's on your mind.
3. a. To state as one's opinion or judgment; declare: I say let's eat out.
b. To state as a determination of fact: It's hard to say who is
right in this matter..
Steve McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 10:36:42AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
1. The process is intended as a last resort - what steps would
you take before initiating or supporting it yourself?
I would need to convince myself of two things:
* that the project as a whole
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You said:
ITYM wrote. Any voices you heard reading debian-vote to you today
were not mine. If you can't distinguish between me and the voices
you hear reading debian-vote to you, please ask your doctor.
2. Do you believe it would be fair to cite someone's
Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 10:36:42AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
2. Do you believe it would be fair to cite someone's non-technical
socio-religious views in the reasoning for or against expulsion?
I sure hope you are not seriously asking that.
Sadly, events last
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Do you believe that anyone in Debian has ever been discriminated against
for socio-religious views that had no impact on their ability to work in
the project?
Given the number of people in Debian, it seems probable that
one will have experienced religious
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
[+2 questions from other people]
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 04:39:52PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
Why does it need to happen directly after r2?
[+3 questions]
Uh, what the hell?
[+2 things that might be answers]
This is why I hate trying to talk
Kevin Rosenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What's specifically is inappropriate about publically stating one's
opinion of a candidate, whether positive or negative, after being
nominated for the position?
IMO it was inappropriate because it was mostly a personal attack
and said nothing about why to
Please, if you email questions of the candidates, put something in
the subject line to indicate the subject(s) of the questions. It
will make it much easier to find them in the archives.
Last year, we had very helpful debate summaries posted by
David Schmitt(?) which helped solve this confusion,
olive [EMAIL PROTECTED]
However the DFSG is there to juge if a license is free or not and these
guidlines must be used to juge the freeness of a software. A lot of
zealots in this list just invent way to reject licenses they don't like
even if these complies with the DFSG; or invent some
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The reference cards do not require the removal of the invariant
sections. You can print the invariant sections on separate sheet(s)
of paper.
Any work requiring waste of paper on that relative scale is
not only not free as in freedom, but unethical and
Xavier Roche [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 9 Feb 2006, J=E9r=F4me Marant wrote:
I'd propose to revert this and clearly define what software is.
I fully agree. The Holier than Stallman stuff is really getting
ridiculous. After the firmware madeness, now the documentation madeness.
[...]
Stephen Gran wrote:
This one time, at band camp, MJ Ray said:
The current opinion of FSF, at least. In the past, RMS has
worked against advertising clauses far less obnoxious than
the FDL ones. [...]
Er, we consider the 4 clause BSD license a free license.
I know. Did you just not read
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 05:22:39PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
That's exactly why it's not similar to the things allowed by the
patch clause. FDL is more a licence that requires later programmers
to add a function that adds to or clarifies or subverts the original
Anton Zinoviev write:
Can you confirm that the second interpretation expresses properly
what modifications must be allowed about a particular software
program or documentation for it to be considered free by FSF.
Notice that I intentionaly mentioned both software program and
Anton Zinoviev wrote:
[...] If I decide to create a package
with some essays from www.gnu.org that package would be free acording
to FSF and non-free acording to DFSG (because these essays are not
modifiable). I have no problems with that.
FSF would probably call it free documentation or
Adeodato Simó
Are you deliberately lying here, to make your point prettier, or are
you ciberately stating that Andrew lied himself in [3]?
Neither.
Thanks,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
--
craig
the DFSG does not require convenience. it requires freedom. lack of
convenience DOES NOT equate to non-free.
case in point - it is inconvenient (for both the distributor and the
user) to distribute modified software in the form of original work +
patch file. very inconvenient. in
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] [...]
the patch to the opinions/rants/whatever in an invariant section does
not change that invariant section (it can't change, it's *INVARIANT*).
It adds a NEW invariant section which makes whatever point the 'patcher'
wants to make. the new section may add to
Craig Sanders wrote:
as has been pointed out hundreds of times before, there are several
other situations where neither the DFSG nor the debian project require
modifiability - license texts and copyright notices, for example.
As has been pointed out hundreds more times, those limitations are
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 10:24:17AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
As has been pointed out hundreds more times, those limitations are
imposed by copyright law more than by licences. Even the licences
which can be modified (such as the GPL), can't be modified if you
Roger Leigh
I think that this behaviour, as well as that on other lists in the
recent past, is making it increasingly necessary that we introduce
some way of enforcing a minimum standard of decency on our lists. [...]
You pillory[1] a man over his -private beliefs about death[2]
to the point
Michael wrote:
I'm thinking of something like
http://people.debian.org/~mjr/gr-fdl.txt (24k, only based on originals)
Uhm, this is a joke, right?
No. I'll thank you to get better at spotting jokes. I expect there are
others who agree with aj's text on some points and adeodato's on another.
still too divided on this matter.
BTW, I disagree with the suggestion that reversing the release team
decision should be fast-tracked to appear before the position. We
should find our position and then act appropriately, if possible.
Thanks for reading,
--
MJ Ray - personal email, see http
At the time of writing, I've not seen these two answered:
Fabian Fagerholm [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Has Debian explicitly adopted the view that GFDL is completely
non-DFSG-free regardless of its mode of use? If so, which GR(s) has
(have) established this?
I think so. Amongst others, see
Adeodato =?utf-8?B?U2ltw7M=?= [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Right, FSF stuff goes away. OTOH, I feel utterly ashamed each time I
imagine the possibility of the following conversation taking place:
=C2=ABHey, fellow free software developer, thanks for writing such a cool
program and releasing it under the
Adeodato Sim=C3=B3
Formally, the Debian Project will include in the main section of
its distribution works licensed under the GNU Free Documentation
License that include no Invariant Sections, no Cover Texts, no
Acknowledgements, and no Dedications, unless permission to remove
Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But not all documentation is attached to a software. For instance, if
I write a book Software development on Debian, releasing it under
the GFDL is still the reasonable thing to do.
It's reasonable if you want to attach adverts to it and allow others
to do
documented, the GNU
General Public License (for a copyleft license) or a BSD- or
MIT/X11-style license (for a non-copyleft license).
[...] I've put the above draft on the wiki
[3] so people can tweak it.
[3] http://wiki.debian.org/GFDLPositionStatement
That page says it is immutable.
Thanks,
--
MJ
Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 03:00:42PM +, Moray Allan wrote:
Wouldn't it be better for people interested in opening the -private
archives to try a pure opt-in approach first? (Which wouldn't require
any change to current policies.)
If most of the archive should be
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I also worry about security reports that include personally
identifiable information, trade (business?) secrets or copyrighted
material, which are not really relevant to the bug itself, but were
sent in with the expectation that this was a typical vendor
Kalle Kivimaa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...] And as you can see from the proposal, we all
have a veto on the declassification [...]
There is no *veto* in the proposal. There is a limited opportunity
for the message author to object and otherwise a GR can be used
- which would be possible anyway if the
Julian Gilbey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I see a glaring contradiction here: on the one hand, the opening
paragraph talks about publishing selected posts: those with historical
or ongoing significance, but the rest of the GR talks about
declassifying *all* emails with stated exceptions. [...]
I don't
Margarita Manterola [EMAIL PROTECTED]
There is important historical information hidden in the debian-private
archives. Like the reasons why the social contract and the DFSG are
the way they are.
I believe that is a small proportion of the messages and does not
justify the proposed disclosure
Kalle Kivimaa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The proposal guarantees that if an author wishes his/her post(s) to
remain confidential, they will do so. The proposal has a specific
procedure that must be followed to publish any -private message,
either past or future, and the author of the message has a veto
It seems my previous post got lost or ignored. Retrying:
Anthony Towns wrote:
* The team will automatically declassify and publish posts made to
that list that are three or more years old, with the following
exceptions:
I don't think we have any moral right and barely any legal
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David N. Welton) wrote:
Just to be clear, nothing against Anthony Towns. I think he'd do
alright as DPL.
Sounds like you've asked a few people and are now hedging your bets!
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
Ean Schuessler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 17 March 2005 6:20 pm, MJ Ray wrote: [...]
Isn't that why we have the reference to section 9 in the DPL's
description, which defines the debian/SPI relationship and SPI
only considers DPL requests. [...]
So, does it take a GR to move
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
[...] It took 'til April for people
not paying attention to SPI to notice the change [3],
I don't have authorization for spi-private archives right now
(which, as an SPI contributing member, I think sucks). Who do
you mean by people not paying
Ean Schuessler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This summary leaves out some key elements.
That's a nature of both summary and diplomacy. He didn't mention
that you were organisationally asleep and reacted when you woke up
by trying to exceed your powers. I suspect John wants to avoid any
unnecessary
Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-03-17 12:20]:
I don't have authorization for spi-private archives right now
(which, as an SPI contributing member, I think sucks).
Why does it not work?
http://members.spi-inc.org/ doesn't let me sign
Ean Schuessler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't want to revisit the entire discussion here but if you read the
by-laws
you will see that they specifically empower the President to see that all
books, reports and certificates as required by law are properly kept or
filed. The only way I
Ean Schuessler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 17 March 2005 2:07 pm, MJ Ray wrote:
Yes, it would be good to have more replies on
http://debian.edv-bus.at/vote-2005/spi-management.html
Agreed.
I have been reminded that an SPI question was asked around line 205
of http
A (xhtml, line-numbered, colourised) log of #debian-dpl-debate is available
at http://people.debian.org/~mjr/debian_dpl_debate.html
Let me know if you want reasonable presentation mods.
Like the BBC says: other logs may exist.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
Ean Schuessler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The accounting solution at SPI is still tenuous. Illness, accident or simple
boredom could still easily lead us to the situation we had before. The
solution you've outlined could work but it increases complexity rather than
removing it. I don't know
Anthony Towns's rebuttal to Branden Robinson looks partly
false. It mentions Branden's demotion to deputy-treasurer
under Jimmy Kaplowitz about SPI.
It looks from
http://www.spi-inc.org/corporate/resolutions/resolution-2004-01-06.jrk.1.br.1
and http://www.spi-inc.org/corporate/minutes/20040907
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sure. I have asked the questions on-topic here (summarised at
http://debian.edv-bus.at/vote-2005/communication-exclusion.html
http://debian.edv-bus.at/vote-2005/communication-debian-women.html )
and hope
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
to discrimination, but I was told that wasn't a list purpose:
are you saying it is? Why do you know better than others?
I notice that you do not directly answer any question.
I am saying tha discrimination
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Note: I originally posted this to another list -- thinking this whole
debian-women thread was off topic for debian-vote. M.J. Ray
indicated only that he thinks debian-vote is the appropriate list, so
I'm reposting it here, with minor edits.]
What a
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The idea to ignore trolls is hardly new, or unusual. Nor is it a
policy, in the sense that anyone is ordered to ignore them under
pain of expulsion. [...]
Not in that sense, but that sense doesn't follow directly from
the word policy. I'd expect
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [...]
Not in that sense, but that sense doesn't follow directly from
the word policy. I'd expect someone consistently ignoring it
to be corrected, but ICBW.
It's not policy regardless. It's a recommendation
David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 01:19:16PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If debian-legal is to be thrusted, they must be prepared to have an
argumentation whichis able to convince the maintainer, and not try to
force
half
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For example, Searching for Safety Online (which recommends
pro-active interventions) has been used to justify the
debate-killing silence policy in the List FAQ, which seems just
plain broken.
Wait, you think
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on -vote:
This is partly a problem with debian-legal documentation, but some
of the stuff you do is listed as don't do this in the list code of
conduct.
There is a code of conduct specifically for debian-legal
Matthias Urlichs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You can get another ticket for the Meme Lottery if you tell us what we
I think this above is inappropriate content.
(and/or the new DPL) should do instead, given that (a) inappropriate
content is a problem on many Debian lists, and (b) previous
Amaya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
When I first became a developer, I found debian-devel frightening,
hostile and very intimidating, I must admit this was not so because of
gender issues. [...]
In fact, I suspect the correlation is not very strong.
[...] more of a personal issue ok, so
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 11:46:39PM +, MJ Ray wrote: [...]
Why do you think that you would get no warning? It's not like
Because the first mention i got of the problem was when some debian-legal
following idiot send me a bug report that my package
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And, personally, I really don't see the relevance in the context of
this web page. If you're tired, and want to just get stuff done, don't
you have your own web pages? [...]
A variation on the you can discriminate in your own space suggestion.
Not a good
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marco subscribes to the notion that the DFSG was originally only meant
to apply to ELF binaries, and anything else is de jure free. Anybody
who says different, including anybody who was around at the time, can
be dismissed as a 'revisionist'.
Marco
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You are invited to clarify on the small teams section of your
platform. [...]
I understood it as similar to what I call the magnificent seven
models being advocated by consensus-based grassroots groups
recently. I don't know whether I was right and I'll
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And most DDs have also stopped paying any attention to -legal, so ...
I challenge you to provide data, but it's actually irrelevant,
as long as we assist those who want our assistence. debian-legal
is mostly welcoming and willing to help with debian packages.
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 03:31:49PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
[...] I hope that the link was there originally and
has just been lost because of the sort of habit and familiarity
that made you name the wrong test above. [...]
The notion that it has ever
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
They're trying to find out why women aren't as actively involved in
Debian as are men, so that they can remedy any problems, should those
arise.
I support them doing that.
In doing so, it isn't unreasonable to see what women currently
involved
Steve McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
Erinn Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because you refuse to subscribe to our list or read DWN for ideological
reasons.
I think you'll find many DDs aren't subscribed to your list or reading DWN.
*yawn* And they're also not the ones
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You haven't said anything sexist about it, except that it has a clear
purpose.
I have, IMO. I consider discrimination on the basis of sex to be sexism.
I've also described an incident of unchallenged racism on the
debian-women list. While I believe
Ben Burton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have, IMO. I consider discrimination on the basis of sex to be sexism.
i.e., you favour the law of the jungle. Which, may I say, has a fine
history of maintaining artificial imbalances caused by past injustices.
No, I favour stopping discrimination and
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 02:09:26AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Arguing in favour of so-called positive discrimination is just
another case of ignoring present crimes by past-persecuted people.
We have to learn from the past and overcome mistakes, not relive
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Maybe. Call it revenge if you want, but please consider whether
there's truth behind them or how one can tell.
Your accusations are, as far as I can tell, entirely false.
Can you tell? I know at least one
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is a women-only web page?
A page about people that only admits contributions from women.
Where is the list charter for debian-women women-only?
Being about or by women are the only topicality criteria for debian-women,
last I saw.
--
To
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sadly not directly. The public stuff is too vague and
limited to the level of Who cares? about someone linking
krooger's message to him being a white christian male.
All the debian-women mail is public.
All
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Notice that there is already an effort on this subject going on in
debian-esperanto, and you would have known about it if you had been subscribed
to this list, i guess you are more than welcome to join that effort.
Notice that I am a (minor) part in that
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Mar 05, 2005 at 02:25:49AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Like those are the only two options, the two extremes. It
When you're trying to solve the problem of ensure that someone you may not
know exists gets your announcements, that is basically
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The list shows everybody who has more than 1000 points. You are not
among them (except if my DWN-parsing script is broken), but MJ himself
currently has 2661 points and a ranking of #30.
Interesting, but missing any measure of whether I'm being
kissed
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scripsit MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Interesting, but missing any measure of whether I'm being
kissed or kicked.
If we are talking about the same publication, then neither. For all
the time I have read DWN, its stories have consisted of neutral
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you cannot substantiate them publicly, then they are nothing more
than pissing in the wind.
Get Message-Id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
that was sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] if it matters that much to you. I
don't have a copy here and I've not checked my
201 - 300 of 648 matches
Mail list logo
