On Sun, 24 Sep 2006, Don Armstrong wrote:
Baring objection, I plan on calling for a vote with a suggested
balot containing only this option in a few days (no later than
09-27).
As the Secretary has indicated that amendment proposed by Frans Pop
would be disparate from this one (and the similar
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 Mon, 25 Sep 2006, Steve Langasek wrote:
And with my original proposal withdrawn, is it still your opinion
that this resolution warrants a vote of its own?
It's not as important anymore, but it does resolve a few of the open
how do we interpret what the DFSG says questions in regards to
On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 11:32:59PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
On Monday 25 September 2006 05:11, Don Armstrong wrote:
Baring objection, I plan on calling for a vote with a suggested balot
containing only this option in a few days (no later than 09-27).[1]
[The Secretary, of course, can
On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 04:34:22AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 01:20:12PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
So, you also agree that we need to :
1) first vote on the exception for etch.
2) in a second phase vote for what to do with non-free firmware ?
What?
Le mardi 26 septembre 2006 à 15:04 +0200, Frank Küster a écrit :
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
B) we do a single ballot :
[ ] non-free firmware belong in non-free (don)
[ ] non-free firmware can be accepted in main (josselin) (needs 3:1)
This is not what the proposal
On Tuesday 26 September 2006 11:49, Steve Langasek wrote:
I agree with Don. If this proposal is going to go to a vote, it should
go to a vote separately from the votes about exceptions, so that we can
get a clear answer to the exception question without the outcome being
tainted by either
On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 02:49:29AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 11:32:59PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
On Monday 25 September 2006 05:11, Don Armstrong wrote:
Baring objection, I plan on calling for a vote with a suggested balot
containing only this option in a few
Le mardi 26 septembre 2006 à 13:56 +0200, Frans Pop a écrit :
On Tuesday 26 September 2006 11:49, Steve Langasek wrote:
I agree with Don. If this proposal is going to go to a vote, it should
go to a vote separately from the votes about exceptions, so that we can
get a clear answer to the
On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 03:14:03PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
Le mar 26 septembre 2006 14:08, Sven Luther a écrit :
[ ] non-free firmware can be accepted in main (josselin) (needs 3:1)
this is very poorly worded, joss proposition is not that at all, it's
about allowing firmware in
On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 01:20:12PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
So, you also agree that we need to :
1) first vote on the exception for etch.
2) in a second phase vote for what to do with non-free firmware ?
What? *Neither* of these is the subject of Don's resolution.
--
Steve Langasek
Le mar 26 septembre 2006 14:08, Sven Luther a écrit :
[ ] non-free firmware can be accepted in main (josselin) (needs 3:1)
this is very poorly worded, joss proposition is not that at all, it's
about allowing firmware in main *until* a proper technical solution
exists.
and afaict Manoj never
On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 03:20:52PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le mardi 26 septembre 2006 à 15:04 +0200, Frank Küster a écrit :
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
B) we do a single ballot :
[ ] non-free firmware belong in non-free (don)
[ ] non-free firmware can
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 13:56:21 +0200, Frans Pop [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Tuesday 26 September 2006 11:49, Steve Langasek wrote:
I agree with Don. If this proposal is going to go to a vote, it
should go to a vote separately from the votes about exceptions, so
that we can get a clear answer
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 14:08:14 +0200, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
There are three proposals which are actually votable on :
1) don's : reaffirm the current social contract, and non-free
firmware belong in non-free.
According to the proposer, this should be:
1)
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about:
[ ] DFSG #2 applies to all programmatic works
[ ] further discussion
Followed by:
[ ] Release Etch even with kernel freeware issues
[ ] Special exception to DFSG#2 for firmware as long as required [needs 3:1]
[ ] further
On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 11:15:39AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 14:08:14 +0200, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
There are three proposals which are actually votable on :
1) don's : reaffirm the current social contract, and non-free
firmware belong in
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I like the idea, but it eliminates some choices for the voter. With this
setup, it is not possible to prioritize the firmware removal over the
release, while still considering other options acceptable. How would I
be able to express the following:
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 20:50:08 +0200, Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Le mardi 26 septembre 2006 à 11:15 -0500, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
2) joselin's : we make an indefinite exception for non-free
firmware.
This creates an exception clause to DFSG#2, and in affect changes
Le mardi 26 septembre 2006 à 14:33 -0500, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
I like the idea, but it eliminates some choices for the voter. With
this setup, it is not possible to prioritize the firmware removal
over the release, while still considering other options
acceptable. How would I be able
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 22:46:02 +0200, Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Le mardi 26 septembre 2006 à 14:33 -0500, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
I like the idea, but it eliminates some choices for the
voter. With this setup, it is not possible to prioritize the
firmware removal over the
Hi Don,
On Sun, Sep 24, 2006 at 08:11:58PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Sun, 24 Sep 2006, Don Armstrong wrote:
As far as placing it or not placing it on a separate ballot, it
would be nice to have it separate, as it deals with clarifying the
firmware problem before exceptions are
On Monday 25 September 2006 05:11, Don Armstrong wrote:
Baring objection, I plan on calling for a vote with a suggested balot
containing only this option in a few days (no later than 09-27).[1]
[The Secretary, of course, can override this suggested ballot.]
I strongly object to separating this
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006, Frans Pop wrote:
I strongly object to separating this proposal out and calling for a
vote without any alternative proposals or amendments, for the
foolowing reasons:
1) The proposal on its own adds nothing to the status quo: the SC is
currently widely understood to
On Tuesday 26 September 2006 01:40, Don Armstrong wrote:
I agree that there are practical implications, and that something
should be done about them, but I think that they're out of scope for a
resolution whose purpose is to clarify how DFSG #2 should be
interpreted.
I stand by my opinion
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006, Frans Pop wrote:
On Tuesday 26 September 2006 01:40, Don Armstrong wrote:
I agree that there are practical implications, and that something
should be done about them, but I think that they're out of scope for a
resolution whose purpose is to clarify how DFSG #2 should
On Sun, 24 Sep 2006, Don Armstrong wrote:
As far as placing it or not placing it on a separate ballot, it
would be nice to have it separate, as it deals with clarifying the
firmware problem before exceptions are granted, but I don't have any
objections to it being on the same ballot as the
27 matches
Mail list logo
