On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 08:45:16PM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
If there was a GR which chainged the Debian Social contract which
relaxed the first clause to only include __software__ running on the
Host CPU, I would enthusiastically vote for such a measure.
I doubt that this a usable
On Mon, 29 Dec 2008, Anthony Towns wrote:
Anyway, given the last proposal I made [0] went nowhere, unless people
want to come up with their own proposals, or want to second the above as
a draft proposal to be improved and voted on, I suspect nothing much will
change, and we'll have this
I thought FD was also a vote for release Lenny given it didn't change
the status quo and before the GR the release team were quite happy to
release...
If you believe that the release team had the authority to release lenny
with an arbitrary amount of non-free software, then yes, that would
* Thomas Bushnell BSG [Sun, 28 Dec 2008 21:55:36 -0800]:
I wish we could have in the world of GNU/Linux one, just one,
please--just one--distribution which really took free software as of
cardinal importance.
I don't like the wording of your sentence, but I'll point out that
gNewSense already
Hi,
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 03:02:41PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 08:45:16PM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 12:48:24AM +, Simon Huggins wrote:
I wonder how many DDs were ashamed to vote the titled Reaffirm the
social contract lower than
In linux.debian.vote Thomas Bushnell BSG t...@becket.net wrote:
I would prefer this. But I am afraid of it, and so I would vote against
it. I am afraid that there are folks in the project who really don't
care if Debian is 100% free--even as a goal. I think that Ted Tso is
even one of them.
In linux.debian.vote Thomas Bushnell BSG t...@becket.net wrote:
On Sun, 2008-12-28 at 20:45 -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
I'm not ashamed at all; I joined before the 1.1 revision to the Debian
Social Contract, which I objected to them, and I still object to now.
If there was a GR which chainged
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 09:55:36PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
On Mon, 2008-12-29 at 15:02 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
I would personally prefer
for the project to have the freedom to decide those sorts of things
on a day-to-day basis through regular decision making [...]
I would
* Theodore Tso:
I'm not ashamed at all; I joined before the 1.1 revision to the Debian
Social Contract, which I objected to them, and I still object to now.
If there was a GR which chainged the Debian Social contract which
relaxed the first clause to only include __software__ running on the
This one time, at band camp, Clint Adams said:
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 12:48:24AM +, Simon Huggins wrote:
I thought FD was also a vote for release Lenny given it didn't change
the status quo and before the GR the release team were quite happy to
release...
If you believe that the
* Mike Hommey:
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 03:01:19PM +0100, Florian Weimer f...@deneb.enyo.de
wrote:
* Theodore Tso:
I'm not ashamed at all; I joined before the 1.1 revision to the Debian
Social Contract, which I objected to them, and I still object to now.
If there was a GR which
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 03:01:19PM +0100, Florian Weimer f...@deneb.enyo.de
wrote:
* Theodore Tso:
I'm not ashamed at all; I joined before the 1.1 revision to the Debian
Social Contract, which I objected to them, and I still object to now.
If there was a GR which chainged the Debian
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 09:55:36PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
I would prefer this. But I am afraid of it, and so I would vote against
it. I am afraid that there are folks in the project who really don't
care if Debian is 100% free--even as a goal. I think that Ted Tso is
even one
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 03:02:41PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Using the word software as the basis for the divide might be too much:
we've already done a lot of work restricting main to DFSG-free docs, and
I think it makes sense to keep that. Having main be a functioning bunch
of free stuff
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 09:11:01AM -0500, Theodore Tso ty...@mit.edu wrote:
As others have pointed out, there is such a distribution, gNewSense; in
fact, if you look at [2], you will find that there are five others,
Ututu (the first fully free GNU/Linux distribution recognized by the
FSF),
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 09:55:36PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
I wish we could have in the world of GNU/Linux one, just one,
please--just one--distribution which really took free software as of
cardinal importance. Debian has promised to be that, while living up to
the promise only in
Subject: Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations
Message-ID: 20081229103925.ga22...@powerlinux.fr
In-Reply-To: 20081229050241.gd11...@blae.erisian.com.au
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)
From: Sven Luther s...@powerlinux.fr
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 03:02:41PM
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 11:12:01AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
For someone that is in Debian for so long its pretty bad how one can
misjudge it...
That's great.
If you don't want them to release glibc as is, why didn't you upload a
more suitable version?
I'm happy to delay the release
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 7:54 AM, Wouter Verhelst wou...@debian.org wrote:
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 09:55:36PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
I wish we could have in the world of GNU/Linux one, just one,
please--just one--distribution which really took free software as of
cardinal importance.
* Florian Weimer f...@deneb.enyo.de [2008-12-29 15:01:19 CET]:
* Theodore Tso:
I'm not ashamed at all; I joined before the 1.1 revision to the Debian
Social Contract, which I objected to them, and I still object to now.
If there was a GR which chainged the Debian Social contract which
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 04:20:28PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 09:11:01AM -0500, Theodore Tso ty...@mit.edu wrote:
FSF), Dynebolic, Musix GNU+Linux, BLAG, and Trisquel. So not only is
there one such distribution that takes free software of cardinal
importance, there
On Mon, 2008-12-29 at 23:27 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Whatever his motives, I think Ted's demonstrably done more to further the
cause of free software than most developers, both by making Linux more
and more usable for over 15 years now, and for helping other developers
work together better,
* Gerfried Fuchs:
For instance, while I have no particular opinion on firmware, I object
to packages in main which, when run on a web browser, execute
proprietary Javascript blobs (either by shipping them in the package,
or by linking them in some way).
But it is. The web browser does run
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 03:16:05PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Mike Hommey:
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 03:01:19PM +0100, Florian Weimer
f...@deneb.enyo.de wrote:
* Theodore Tso:
I'm not ashamed at all; I joined before the 1.1 revision to the Debian
Social Contract, which I
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 10:03:20AM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 03:02:41PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Using the word software as the basis for the divide might be too much:
I'm not convinced that leaving important parts of Debian undocumented
over doctrinal disputes
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 10:10:24PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
But the way you wrote in 4 as we will make any private discussions
publically available at the earliest opportunity. is problematic since
it is 100% disclosure pledge. I suggest something along we will make
any private discussions
* devo...@vote.debian.org (devo...@vote.debian.org) [081228 00:47]:
Dropping Option 1 because of Majority.
(0.5176991150442477876106194690265486725664) 0.518 (117/226) 1
Dropping Option 2 because of Majority.
(1.736434108527131782945736434108527131783) 1.736 (224/129) 3
Dropping Option
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 12:04:43AM +, devo...@vote.debian.org wrote:
In the following table, tally[row x][col y] represents the votes that
option x received over option y.
Option
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
=== === === === ===
* Anthony Towns (a...@azure.humbug.org.au) [081228 11:51]:
[ difference between options 2 and 5]
It's possible that has no practical difference, in which case all the
furour over the running of the vote has no practical effect.
Actually, if one reads the consitution the way I do (and where
Hi,
On Sun, 28.12.2008 at 21:08:04 +1000, Anthony Towns a...@azure.humbug.org.au
wrote:
If you consider the same results, without the supermajority requirements
for options 2, 3, 4 and 6, you get:
Winner: Option 2: Allow Lenny to release with proprietary firmware
considering all the
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 02:57:37PM +0100, Toni Mueller wrote:
Winner: Option 2: Allow Lenny to release with proprietary firmware
considering all the problems around this particular GR, what's the best
way to just undo this GR and go back to square one instead?
It seems to me the
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 09:08:04PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Further discussion came sixth, beaten by between 95 votes (option 2),
and 11 votes (option 6), with Reaffirm the social contract last, defeated
by further discussion by 109 votes.
Oh, a further thought came to mind. One way to
On Sun, 2008-12-28 at 09:05 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
What this voting seems to show is that clearly a majority doesn't want to
stop the release of Lenny. What it also shows however is that the mixing up
of the other options on this ballot and the way the supermajority
requirements were set
* Thomas Bushnell BSG (t...@becket.net) [081228 23:56]:
On Sun, 2008-12-28 at 09:05 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
What this voting seems to show is that clearly a majority doesn't want to
stop the release of Lenny. What it also shows however is that the mixing up
of the other options on this
Thomas Bushnell BSG t...@becket.net writes:
On Sun, 2008-12-28 at 09:05 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
What this voting seems to show is that […] the mixing up of the
other options on this ballot and the way the supermajority
requirements were set is problematic, and probably supporters of
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 12:48:24AM +, Simon Huggins wrote:
I thought FD was also a vote for release Lenny given it didn't change
the status quo and before the GR the release team were quite happy to
release...
If you believe that the release team had the authority to release lenny
with an
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 12:48:24AM +, Simon Huggins wrote:
I wonder how many DDs were ashamed to vote the titled Reaffirm the
social contract lower than the choices that chose to release.
I'm not ashamed at all; I joined before the 1.1 revision to the Debian
Social Contract, which I
Anthony Towns wrote:
Anyway, despite something kinda close to advocacy for the FD option in
the second call for votes on d-d-a, FD lost convincingly to most of the
options on offer. So of any conclusions you might draw, the simplest,
safest and most easily justified seems to be stop discussing
On Mon, 2008-12-29 at 11:54 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
Some members do not agree that the supermajority-required ballot
options actually required changes to the foundation documents, which
is not a comment on how those people think supermajority requirements
should be assigned.
I can only
On Sun, 2008-12-28 at 20:45 -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 12:48:24AM +, Simon Huggins wrote:
I wonder how many DDs were ashamed to vote the titled Reaffirm the
social contract lower than the choices that chose to release.
I'm not ashamed at all; I joined
On Mon, 2008-12-29 at 15:02 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
For example, having non-free in the archive and the BTS (and potentially
buildds and elsewhere) is implied by point (3) (ie, supporting Debian
users who choose to use non-free software to the best of our ability),
and potentially using
Greetings,
This message is an automated, unofficial publication of vote results.
Official results shall follow, sent in by the vote taker, namely
Debian Project Secretary
This email is just a convenience for the impatient.
I remain, gentle folks,
Your humble servant,
42 matches
Mail list logo
