MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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
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
--
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 01:31:30PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 06:13:14PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
no, the truth is, you're blinkered and inflexible and determined to
twist [...]
how long did it take to train you? can you do other tricks?
Yes, I can also
ma, 2006-01-30 kello 13:39 +1100, Craig Sanders kirjoitti:
i'll behave as i please.
if you don't like my words, then don't read them - kill file me if you
feel it's necessary.
Nobody has the right to be personally insulting on Debian lists. It
would certainly be possible to express concern
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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 05:13:26PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 12:09:55AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 02:29:38AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Mon,
On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 09:24:15AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
GIVE. IT. A. FUCKING. REST!
Craig,
I'm willing to debate whatever you want to debate about the GFDL, but
not with insults and shouting.
Respectfully,
--
.../ -/ ---/ .--./ / .--/ .-/ .../ -/ ../ -./ --./ / -.--/ ---/ ..-/ .-./ /
On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 01:08:36PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 09:24:15AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
GIVE. IT. A. FUCKING. REST!
Craig,
I'm willing to debate whatever you want to debate about the GFDL, but
not with insults and shouting.
no, the truth is,
On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 10:24:17AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
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
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
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 01:34:45AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 01:08:36PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 09:24:15AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
GIVE. IT. A. FUCKING. REST!
Craig,
I'm willing to debate whatever you want to debate about
On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 03:09:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
you CAN modify an invariant section - but you can only do so
by adding a new section that subverts or refutes or simply adds
to the invariant section. (Craig Sanders, January 2005)
vs
If it is modified, it does not do its job.
Lars Wirzenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Craig, could you please behave in a polite manner? Regardless of whether
you're right or wrong about your claims about the GFDL, your manner is
inappropriate on Debian mailing lists.
Craig has already made it abundantly clear that he thinks the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Lars Wirzenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Craig, could you please behave in a polite manner? Regardless of whether
you're right or wrong about your claims about the GFDL, your manner is
inappropriate
Roger Leigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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. We
can't continue like this for long. This sort of
On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 04:12:09PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 01:34:45AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 01:08:36PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
I'm willing to debate whatever you want to debate about the GFDL, but
not with insults and
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
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nevertheless, Craig Sanders's colourful rants break the lists code
of conduct far more clearly than posting satire to -devel-announce.
Where are the winged angels of vengence? But then, the d-d-a ban
didn't look like it was about enforcing the list codes
* MJ Ray [Tue, 31 Jan 2006 00:25:48 +]:
to the point where he recoils from the project[3], don't answer
Are you deliberately lying here, to make your point prettier, or are
you ciberately stating that Andrew lied himself in [3]?
3.
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
with one of you, as with all, there's no point in engaging in debate or
any kind of civilised discourse.
So ... Why don't you just stop the flaming, if there's no point anyway?
I have the feeling that this would somehow improve the climate of the
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 10:10:11AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 04:12:09PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 01:34:45AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 01:08:36PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
I'm willing to debate whatever
On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 06:13:14PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
no, the truth is, you're blinkered and inflexible and determined to
twist [...]
oh look, it's yet another wind up doll - how cute.
how long did it take to train you? can you do other tricks?
there does seem to be a lot of
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 01:45:40AM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
Hereby I am proposing an amendment to the GR about GFDL opened by
Anthony Towns [Sun, 01 Jan 2006 15:02:04 +1000]
I wish to thank everybody who will support this amendment, especially
I wish to thank those who second it.
I
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 02:29:38AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 01:45:40AM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
(2) The Invariant Sections - Main Objection Against GFDL
[...]
This argument has been brought up a number of times already, but it does
not hold.
no, it holds
On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 12:09:55AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 02:29:38AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 01:45:40AM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
(2) The Invariant Sections - Main Objection Against GFDL
[...]
This argument has been brought
On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 05:13:26PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 12:09:55AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 02:29:38AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 01:45:40AM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
(2) The Invariant Sections -
ma, 2006-01-30 kello 09:24 +1100, Craig Sanders kirjoitti:
only indirectly. the real point, which you missed, was to be an accurate
description of reality - something that, as an extremist nutcase, you
are challenged by.
[ further insults deleted ]
Craig, could you please behave in a polite
On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 02:37:05AM +0200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
ma, 2006-01-30 kello 09:24 +1100, Craig Sanders kirjoitti:
only indirectly. the real point, which you missed, was to be an accurate
description of reality - something that, as an extremist nutcase, you
are challenged by.
[
Anton Zinoviev wrote:
Hereby I am proposing an amendment to the GR about GFDL opened by
Anthony Towns [Sun, 01 Jan 2006 15:02:04 +1000]
I wish to thank everybody who will support this amendment, especially
I wish to thank those who second it.
I second the amendment quoted below. It's my
On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 16:55 -0600, Graham Wilson wrote:
On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 10:10:22AM +0200, Fabian Fagerholm wrote:
Those in favour of two separate GR's:
* Read my GR proposal [0] and second it (your choice of course).
* Read Nathanael's amendment proposal [1] to my
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 09:45 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I think I was partially responding to aj's question about why
we need it to be two separate GR's. At this point, we can have either
2 GR's -- one for deciding on the status of GFDL licensed works, with
or without invariant
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 16:05 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 10:09:53PM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
The following is my reasoning (and similar for control).
Progress or accomplishment means that the process that is being
hindered or prevented has already started. Hence
El martes, 24 de enero de 2006 a las 14:32:39 +0200, Anton Zinoviev escribía:
You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the
reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute
The permissions are clearly a technical measure.
They clearly obstruct and
On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 10:10:22AM +0200, Fabian Fagerholm wrote:
Those in favour of two separate GR's:
* Read my GR proposal [0] and second it (your choice of course).
* Read Nathanael's amendment proposal [1] to my proposal. A DD
needs to send it as a reply to my
On Mon, 2006-01-23 at 17:39 -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
I think everyone is forgetting this one (IMHO pretty reasonable)
option:
- Works licensed under the terms of the GNU FDL but with no
invariant-foo comply (or may comply) with the DFSG, but we still
refuse to distribute them,
Peter Samuelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Russ Allbery]
If we're going to put all the options on the ballot, let's go ahead
and put them *all* on the ballot so that no significant group of DDs
can later claim that their opinion wasn't represented by the choices.
I think everyone is
Steve Langasek wrote:
Wow, you think it's prudent to rely on an external organization with whom
you do not have a contract for your compliance with a license? Most
businesses would *not*, and I doubt most judges would either.
Aren't those same organizations relying on us to, say, not attempt
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 11:49:04PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
The overall subject can be software freedom but not necesarily in all
cases and certainly not in the case with the man-page. One can not
use simple quantity calculations in order to determine what the
overall subject of a
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 12:42:27AM +1300, Anthony Towns wrote:
It is naive to think that in order to fulfil this requirement of DFSG
Calling your fellow developers naive isn't terribly nice, you sell
out... ;)
I do not call my fellow developers naive because they do not think
this. In
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 07:59:44PM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
That does not follow at all. If the GNOME Foundation chooses to
license documents as GFDL, it does not mean they believe it is a free
software license. It can just as easily signify that they do not
believe documentation
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 10:05:12AM +0100, David N. Welton wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
Wow, you think it's prudent to rely on an external organization with whom
you do not have a contract for your compliance with a license? Most
businesses would *not*, and I doubt most judges would
[Frank Küster]
- Works licensed under the terms of the GNU FDL but with no
invariant-foo comply (or may comply) with the DFSG, but we still
refuse to distribute them, because of the significant practical
problems that this would cause both for us and for our users.
If you propose
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 05:39:07PM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
The notable practical problems I'm alluding to would include:
- All Debian mirrors must retain source packages one year after the
corresponding binary packages are deleted
The license does not require this because on all
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 00:53 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
Yes, and under this license we would still have to keep those sources around
for a year *after* we stop distributing woody in binary form. And provide
for backups network reliability, since losing our copy would leave us in
violation
On Sunday 22 January 2006 16:45, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
In fact, the license says only this:
You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the
reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute
Did any of you actually *read* this? Read it.
What it actually
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The license is an agreement that regulates one action: the distribution,
right?
No, unfortunately.
Under copyright law, creating private copies, or private modified copies, is
one of the exclusive privileges of the copyright holder. You need permission
from the
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 06:39:41AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
On Sunday 22 January 2006 16:45, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
In fact, the license says only this:
You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the
reading or further copying of the copies you make or
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 06:39 -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Did any of you actually *read* this? Read it.
What it actually *says*, means that storing a copy on a multiuser machine
with
UNIX permissions set so that it can't be read by everyone is *prohibited*.
The permissions are clearly
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 06:39:41AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
On Sunday 22 January 2006 16:45, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
In fact, the license says only this:
You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the
reading or
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 02:02:25PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
If you do chmod -r then I am unable to read the file and there
exists no reading to control.
Come on. If the directory is world (or just group) readable, there *is*
in fact something to read. Simply defining that every copy
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 02:02:25PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
If you do chmod -r then I am unable to read the file and there
exists no reading to control.
Come on. If the directory is world (or just group) readable, there *is*
in fact something
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 02:48:20PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 02:02:25PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
If you do chmod -r then I am unable to read the file and there
exists no reading to control.
Come on. If the
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't say the copy doesn't matter. I say that there is no process
of reading the copy. Do I control your reading of the image on my
So you agree that using permission bits is obstructing the reading, as
defined in the GFDL?
From WordNet (r) 2.0
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 18:25:54 +0100, Adeodato Simó [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
* Russ Allbery [Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:17:14 -0800]:
If we're going to put all the options on the ballot, let's go ahead
and put them *all* on the ballot so that no significant group of
DDs can later claim that their
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 04:27:25PM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
So you agree that using permission bits is obstructing the reading, as
defined in the GFDL?
From WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:
obstruct
v 1: hinder or prevent the progress or accomplishment of; His
brother
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 12:17:24PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Well, if you ask the people that use this man-page they will tell.
Uh. You'll have to make a choice here: either the text is the entirety
of _all_ manpages (in which case you can split off the invariant
sections and the FDL
* Peter Samuelson [Mon, 23 Jan 2006 17:39:07 -0600]:
- All Debian mirrors must retain source packages one year after the
corresponding binary packages are deleted
- Debian CD vendors must either ship source CDs to all customers
regardless of whether a customer wants them, or maintain
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 12:17:24PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
With respect to that freedom GPL is also non-free.
It is not. See below.
Anyone arguing for invariant sections by pointing to license texts has
missed all of the prior discussions on this topic, going back years.
Given the
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 10:09:53PM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 04:27:25PM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
So you agree that using permission bits is obstructing the reading, as
defined in the GFDL?
From WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:
obstruct
v 1: hinder or
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 10:10:19PM +0100, Adeodato Sim?? wrote:
* Peter Samuelson [Mon, 23 Jan 2006 17:39:07 -0600]:
- Neither Debian, nor the mirror network, nor the users, can use
rsync-over-ssh to update their CD images or individual packages.
Can't the Debian Project (by means of its
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 11:22:49AM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
It is a fact confirmed by Richard Stallman, author of GFDL,
Cite, please.
I sent Richard Stallman a draft of my proposal where this paragraph
contained the words it is our belief that. The responce by Stallman
was You can
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 12:50:57AM -0600, Graham Wilson wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 07:59:44PM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
People should think long and hard about this requirement, independent
of whether it is DFSG-compliant. Think about the implications for the
ftp.debian.org mirror
[Anton Zinoviev]
They clearly obstruct and control the reading or further copying of
that copy.
No, they can not. They can not control something that doesn't exist.
I have the root password. If I run 'su', I can read your document. If
I don't, I can't. You are now controlling how I
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 10:28:18AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
That, I can agree with. So let's do that: let's see at what restrictions
are imposed, and whether they would allow me to modify the document so
that it would allow me to do anything I, as a Debian maintainer, would
want to do
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The point is there is no practical difference whether the GNU
Manifesto is placed in the preamble of the license or it is placed in
an invariant section.
Actually, there is. I think that the consensus of debian-legal has
been that we must accept the
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 01:45:40AM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
Hereby I am proposing an amendment to the GR about GFDL opened by
Anthony Towns [Sun, 01 Jan 2006 15:02:04 +1000]
GNU Free Documentation License protects the freedom,
it is compatible with Debian Free Software Guidelines
I second
On Monday 23 January 2006 14:37, Xavier Roche wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 01:45:40AM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
Hereby I am proposing an amendment to the GR about GFDL opened by
Anthony Towns [Sun, 01 Jan 2006 15:02:04 +1000]
GNU Free Documentation License protects the freedom,
it is
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 12:59:54PM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 10:28:18AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
That, I can agree with. So let's do that: let's see at what restrictions
are imposed, and whether they would allow me to modify the document so
that it would
* Russ Allbery [Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:17:14 -0800]:
If we're going to put all the options on the ballot, let's go ahead and
put them *all* on the ballot so that no significant group of DDs can later
claim that their opinion wasn't represented by the choices.
Latelly, I'm thinking that this
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Russ Allbery wrote:
In that case, could someone please propose an amendment which captures the
*other* regularly voiced opinion, namely that GFDL without invarient
sections is DFSG-free but with invarient sections is not, and phrase that
in an appropriate form as an
Adeodato Simó [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Russ Allbery [Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:17:14 -0800]:
If we're going to put all the options on the ballot, let's go ahead and
put them *all* on the ballot so that no significant group of DDs can
later claim that their opinion wasn't represented by the
Em Seg, 2006-01-23 às 10:28 +0100, Wouter Verhelst escreveu:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 10:41:25AM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
If you do not have any access to my encrypted or chmod -r copy, then
I am not controllyng your reading or further copying
Really. If you maintain a copy of a GFDL'ed
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 03:23:02PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
I mean, I know the license says the copies you make or distribute,
but, by definition, wouldn't it apply only to the act of distribution?
No. By default, copyright does not grant you a license to copy a work;
if the license allows
FWIW, I second the amendment quoted below.
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
GNU Free Documentation License protects the freedom,
it is compatible with Debian Free Software Guidelines
~~
(0) Summary
This is the position of Debian
[Russ Allbery]
If we're going to put all the options on the ballot, let's go ahead
and put them *all* on the ballot so that no significant group of DDs
can later claim that their opinion wasn't represented by the choices.
I think everyone is forgetting this one (IMHO pretty reasonable)
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 01:45:40AM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
Hereby I am proposing an amendment to the GR about GFDL opened by
Anthony Towns [Sun, 01 Jan 2006 15:02:04 +1000]
(The proposal actually became formal on the 12th, and that's the one you're
amending, fwiw)
GNU Free Documentation
[Anton Zinoviev]
If Debian decided that GFDL is not free, this would mean that Debian
attempted to impose on the free software community alternative
meaning of free software, effectively violating its Social Contract
with the free software community.
That does not follow at all. If the
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 09:35:32AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Adeodato Sim? [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Russ Allbery [Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:17:14 -0800]:
If we're going to put all the options on the ballot, let's go ahead and
put them *all* on the ballot so that no significant group of DDs
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 07:59:44PM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
People should think long and hard about this requirement, independent
of whether it is DFSG-compliant. Think about the implications for the
ftp.debian.org mirror network, and for CD and DVD vendors. It's a
pretty significant
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 13:58 +1300, Anthony Towns wrote:
I don't think that makes any sense; ignoring the fact I don't think that
GFDL is non-free is a delegate's decision, I don't think it makes
any sense to take an action on this without offering an explanation of
why at the same time.
Le lundi 23 janvier 2006 à 01:45 +0200, Anton Zinoviev a écrit :
GNU Free Documentation License protects the freedom,
it is compatible with Debian Free Software Guidelines
And I thought Debian politics stayed away from populism...
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :
Hereby I am proposing an amendment to the GR about GFDL opened by
Anthony Towns [Sun, 01 Jan 2006 15:02:04 +1000]
I wish to thank everybody who will support this amendment, especially
I wish to thank those who second it.
I wish to thank also the members of the Debian mailing list at
I second this amendment, quoted in full below:
On Sunday 22 January 2006 16:45, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
Hereby I am proposing an amendment to the GR about GFDL opened by
Anthony Towns [Sun, 01 Jan 2006 15:02:04 +1000]
I wish to thank everybody who will support this amendment, especially
I wish
I will _not_ second this proposal. Moreover, I would like to ask any
Debian Developer who's thinking of doing a second to consider what it
would imply.
Legalese is not programming. See below.
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 01:45:40AM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
(2) The Invariant Sections - Main
[Wouter Verhelst]
I will _not_ second this proposal. Moreover, I would like to ask any
Debian Developer who's thinking of doing a second to consider what it
would imply.
Seconding doesn't mean voting for. Often someone will second an
amendment just to ensure that it gets on the ballot. That
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 12:13:03AM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
[Wouter Verhelst]
I will _not_ second this proposal. Moreover, I would like to ask any
Debian Developer who's thinking of doing a second to consider what it
would imply.
Seconding doesn't mean voting for.
I know that.
86 matches
Mail list logo
