On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 05:09:36PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Mmm, i didn't see any December 29 proposal.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200312/msg00044.html
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 05:09:36PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Mmm, i didn't see any December 29 proposal.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200312/msg00044.html
--
Raul
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 11:40:06AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 05:09:36PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Mmm, i didn't see any December 29 proposal.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200312/msg00044.html
Ah, ok, sure.
I thought that proposals should be
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 09:54:51PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:08:01PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:11:50PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:26:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Since the non-free GR and the social
[ General note: This message contains some history that may be of
interest regarding the previous attempts to get a vote on the topic. ]
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:32:49AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 12:07:14AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:44:33AM
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 11:55:49AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
4. Oppose GR proposals that cannot be actually voted on in any sane
fashion due to being incompatible with procedures in the
Constitution.
(arg, it is difficult to resist being rude, arg, have to control myself ...)
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:26:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Since the non-free GR and the social contract modification GR
encountered nothing but flamewar,
[...]
Furthermore, i believe that the real issue is the non-free issue, and
that the social contract GR is only a way to achieve a
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 07:50:42PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:54:16AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:45:54PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Why are you opposing this. Just for the chance to discuss this to death
another year or so ?
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:41:27PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Uhm, if it was not a GR proposal, then why did your message[13] say
non-free removal GR draft?
Please check the meaning of the word draft in the dictionary. Sure, i
don't have the chance to be a native english speaker, but
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 08:16:52PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:41:27PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Uhm, if it was not a GR proposal, then why did your message[13] say
non-free removal GR draft?
Please check the meaning of the word draft in the dictionary. Sure,
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:11:50PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:26:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Since the non-free GR and the social contract modification GR
encountered nothing but flamewar,
[...]
Furthermore, i believe that the real issue is the non-free
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:04:11PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Yep. But then you all said this was stupid or something, that we were
loosing time, and ... So, i actually changed minds, and was going to try
doing a real proposal or something, but as i perfectly know that my
writing is not of the
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:08:01PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:11:50PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:26:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Since the non-free GR and the social contract modification GR
encountered nothing but flamewar,
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:19:12AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 05:11:51PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
So, let's start from my poll draft, and let's vote on it.
What do you thinkg ? Something like :
I think that it's impossible to vote yes or no to a GR that contains
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 12:07:14AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:44:33AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
John, you are a fraud, you don't really want to resolve this issue, only
If that were the case, why did I:
1. Get this issue to a vote back in 2000[1] (though that
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:44:33AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
John, you are a fraud, you don't really want to resolve this issue, only
If that were the case, why did I:
1. Get this issue to a vote back in 2000[1] (though that vote was later
nullified);
2. Second the proposals before us now,
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:41:27PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Uhm, if it was not a GR proposal, then why did your message[13] say
non-free removal GR draft?
Please check the meaning of the word draft in the dictionary. Sure, i
don't have the chance to be a native english speaker, but
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 07:50:42PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:54:16AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:45:54PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Why are you opposing this. Just for the chance to discuss this to death
another year or so ?
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 08:16:52PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:41:27PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Uhm, if it was not a GR proposal, then why did your message[13] say
non-free removal GR draft?
Please check the meaning of the word draft in the dictionary. Sure,
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:11:50PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:26:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Since the non-free GR and the social contract modification GR
encountered nothing but flamewar,
[...]
Furthermore, i believe that the real issue is the non-free
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:04:11PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Yep. But then you all said this was stupid or something, that we were
loosing time, and ... So, i actually changed minds, and was going to try
doing a real proposal or something, but as i perfectly know that my
writing is not of the
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:26:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Since the non-free GR and the social contract modification GR
encountered nothing but flamewar,
[...]
Furthermore, i believe that the real issue is the non-free issue, and
that the social contract GR is only a way to achieve a
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:08:01PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:11:50PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:26:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Since the non-free GR and the social contract modification GR
encountered nothing but flamewar,
[ General note: This message contains some history that may be of
interest regarding the previous attempts to get a vote on the topic. ]
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:32:49AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 12:07:14AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:44:33AM
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 11:55:49AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
4. Oppose GR proposals that cannot be actually voted on in any sane
fashion due to being incompatible with procedures in the
Constitution.
(arg, it is difficult to resist being rude, arg, have to control myself ...)
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:26:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Ok, will you help me draft something, i am not really a good
administrative writer, but was thinking about something like :
begin of draft Poll to be submitted to vote
Why would we want something non-binding? I cannot
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:26:44PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Why would we want something non-binding? I cannot think of a single
situation in which that will actually resolve anything.
Why not ?
Once we have the result of this, first it will put a stop to the whole
speculation on what
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:07:13PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 08:54:32AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
Ah, sure, but see what happened last time this came up.
And it would be hypocrit. The real issue is what do we want to do about
non-free, not that we want to ammend the
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 08:17:39AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:26:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Ok, will you help me draft something, i am not really a good
administrative writer, but was thinking about something like :
begin of draft Poll to be submitted
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:26:18PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:19:37AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
Well, why not have a non-free GR, and add a social contract hostile
amendment, so that people can vote on both at once, and rank their
preferences appropriately?
Why
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:45:54PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
The only way clearly say what will happen is to make it part of the
ballot. Your poll will *not* say what will happen, and nobody else here
can say what will happen either, because we do not know how a vote will
turn out.
Why
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 08:54:32AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:26:44PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Why would we want something non-binding? I cannot think of a single
situation in which that will actually resolve anything.
Why not ?
Once we have the
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:19:37AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:07:13PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 08:54:32AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
Ah, sure, but see what happened last time this came up.
And it would be hypocrit. The real issue is
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:34:45AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:26:18PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:19:37AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
Well, why not have a non-free GR, and add a social contract hostile
amendment, so that people can vote
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:54:16AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:45:54PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
The only way clearly say what will happen is to make it part of the
ballot. Your poll will *not* say what will happen, and nobody else here
can say what will happen
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 05:11:51PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
So, let's start from my poll draft, and let's vote on it.
What do you thinkg ? Something like :
I think that it's impossible to vote yes or no to a GR that contains 5
different, mutually exclusive, options.
Consider the below. How
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:19:12AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 05:11:51PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
So, let's start from my poll draft, and let's vote on it.
What do you thinkg ? Something like :
I think that it's impossible to vote yes or no to a GR that contains
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 08:17:39AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:26:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Ok, will you help me draft something, i am not really a good
administrative writer, but was thinking about something like :
begin of draft Poll to be submitted to
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:19:12AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 05:11:51PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
So, let's start from my poll draft, and let's vote on it.
What do you thinkg ? Something like :
I think that it's impossible to vote yes or no to a GR that contains
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:44:33AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
John, you are a fraud, you don't really want to resolve this issue, only
If that were the case, why did I:
1. Get this issue to a vote back in 2000[1] (though that vote was later
nullified);
2. Second the proposals before us now,
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 12:07:14AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:44:33AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
John, you are a fraud, you don't really want to resolve this issue, only
If that were the case, why did I:
1. Get this issue to a vote back in 2000[1] (though that
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:07:13PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 08:54:32AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
Ah, sure, but see what happened last time this came up.
And it would be hypocrit. The real issue is what do we want to do about
non-free, not that we want to ammend the
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:26:44PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Why would we want something non-binding? I cannot think of a single
situation in which that will actually resolve anything.
Why not ?
Once we have the result of this, first it will put a stop to the whole
speculation on what
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:26:18PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:19:37AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
Well, why not have a non-free GR, and add a social contract hostile
amendment, so that people can vote on both at once, and rank their
preferences appropriately?
Why
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 08:17:39AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:26:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Ok, will you help me draft something, i am not really a good
administrative writer, but was thinking about something like :
begin of draft Poll to be submitted
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:34:45AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:26:18PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:19:37AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
Well, why not have a non-free GR, and add a social contract hostile
amendment, so that people can vote
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:54:16AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:45:54PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
The only way clearly say what will happen is to make it part of the
ballot. Your poll will *not* say what will happen, and nobody else here
can say what will happen
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:19:12AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 05:11:51PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
So, let's start from my poll draft, and let's vote on it.
What do you thinkg ? Something like :
I think that it's impossible to vote yes or no to a GR that contains
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:54:16AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:45:54PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Why are you opposing this. Just for the chance to discuss this to death
another year or so ?
No; for precisely the opposite reason. I want a vote now, and no poll
to
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:45:54PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
The only way clearly say what will happen is to make it part of the
ballot. Your poll will *not* say what will happen, and nobody else here
can say what will happen either, because we do not know how a vote will
turn out.
Why
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:19:37AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:07:13PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 08:54:32AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
Ah, sure, but see what happened last time this came up.
And it would be hypocrit. The real issue is
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:26:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Ok, will you help me draft something, i am not really a good
administrative writer, but was thinking about something like :
begin of draft Poll to be submitted to vote
Why would we want something non-binding? I cannot
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 08:17:39AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:26:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Ok, will you help me draft something, i am not really a good
administrative writer, but was thinking about something like :
begin of draft Poll to be submitted to
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 05:11:51PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
So, let's start from my poll draft, and let's vote on it.
What do you thinkg ? Something like :
I think that it's impossible to vote yes or no to a GR that contains 5
different, mutually exclusive, options.
Consider the below. How
54 matches
Mail list logo
