Yow, Debian uses a ludicrously complicated voting system.
How was it chosen in the first place anyway?
(Personally, I'm an approval voting fan. Easy to understand, and
particularly good when the most important thing is to avoid causing a
furious schism.)
--Nathanael
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 09:33:34PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Yow, Debian uses a ludicrously complicated voting system.
How was it chosen in the first place anyway?
(Personally, I'm an approval voting fan. Easy to understand, and
particularly good when
Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Hi,
Nathanael Nerode:
Yow, Debian uses a ludicrously complicated voting system.
How was it chosen in the first place anyway?
Voting algorithms should obey some stringent anti-politicking and
plain-common-sense restrictions.
See http://electionmethods.org
On Tue, 27 May 2003 10:18:18 -0400, Andrew Pimlott [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
... and also more likely than if a plain Condorcet method were used.
Which complicates the analysis, because it's easy to construct cases
where B voters can beat A with strategy under both Condorcet+SSD and
Manoj said:
On Tue, 27 May 2003 14:02:19 -0400, Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I've been trying to construct an example of perverse results of the
sort I want (where A beats D, B beats D, A beats B, and B wins
because of quorum). All the correct examples (which I can find,
anyway
Manoj said:
Ah, so now it is a matter of determining intent. So, short of
providing code for telepathically determining the voters intent, how
can one cater to people who really find A unacceptable, and are
voting honestly, from people who would consider A acceptable, but are
lying to give
Manoj:
I think I must be missing something major here (sorry:I've had
less than an average of 5 hours of sleep a night for the last 10 days
or so, and in my old age my faculties are failing me)
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 06:07:00PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Yes, you're missing something
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 06:31:22PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Here's a generalized example:
* Q-1 (or fewer) of the voters vote C as the only acceptable option:
C = 1
D = 2 default
A = 3
B = 3
* Slightly less than one-half of the remaining voters vote like you.
* Slightly more
Anthony Towns said:
excellent analysis snipped
Fundamentally, what it requires is for very few people to express
full preferences. There're only two reasons for this: one is that most
people don't understand the issue, which isn't what happens in Debian;
Or at least if people don't understand the
Comments on proposed wording follow, generally not intended to change
Branden's meanings, but to clarify.
[PROPOSED DRAFT FOR AMENDMENT; NOT OFFICIAL]
1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free
We promise to preserve your right to freely use, modify, and
distribute Debian operating system
Anthony Towns wrote:
What, exactly, is the point of removing non-free from the social contract,
if we're not going to remove non-free entirely?
Hmm.
To remove non-free, but not contrib?
To add new restrictions on what can be in non-free? (Currently the only
requirement for a package in
Branden Robinson wrote, in
E) I say I'm willing to seriously consider breaking up my proposal if
the Project Secretary can help me identify how many axes of
orthogonality he perceives in my original RFD.
These are the axes I see.
(1) Removal of clause 5, so that non-free is not guaranteed in
the importance of non-free software has greatly decreased since the
founding of the project; and
But, unfortunately, the FSF releases large amounts of non-free software
(documentation) which many people would consider important. Eventually
it will be replaced or relicensed, but
Craig Sanders ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
This non-free data documentation can still be used and even modifed by the
end-user, however,
Not necessarily legally modified. In the US you may need a license to
modify works even privately; it's legally unclear.
and the fact that modified versions
John Goerzen wrote:
What's more, if there really are as many people that find
non-free vital, they will no doubt posess the skill, will, and resources
to ensure that a quality non-free repository will exist for a long time.
I very much suspect they will do a better job maintaining it than we
Sven Luther wrote:
Also, another danger i see in it, is that if we don't have a a non-free
anymore, many packages which are borderlines, and which go into non-free
today, will be tempted to go into main (well, not good english, but i
guess you understand).
M J Ray wrote:
We make mistakes sometimes
Sven Luther wrote:
But as you said, it doesn't really prove anything, only that the people
using popularity contest don't really use these non-free packages much.
What about all those who don't run popularity contest, or those who are
offline ? What about monitoring BTS traffic for those packages
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote, in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01122.html:
5. Programs That Don't Meet Our Free-Software Standards
We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of programs
Should be programs and other software. Software is
entire text of
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01192.html
snipped
Andrew, I love it. :-) Every word.
This is so much more important than non-free or not. To me anyway.
--Nathanael Nerode
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
Craig Sanders wrote:
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 11:44:17PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Craig Sanders ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
This non-free data documentation can still be used and even modifed by
the end-user, however,
Not necessarily legally modified. In the US you may need a license
John Goerzen wrote:
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 11:50:43PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
John Goerzen wrote:
What's more, if there really are as many people that find
non-free vital, they will no doubt posess the skill, will, and resources
to ensure that a quality non-free repository will exist
Craig Sanders wrote:
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 05:07:18PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
copyrights do not affect the usage of a document, they only affect the right
to copy and distribute. that's why it's called a COPYRIGHT, not a
USERIGHT. what you do with your own legally-obtained copy is your
Anthony Towns wrote:
Basically, there are two paths to having a main that's completely free:
remove everything that's not free, and have an operating system that's
even more flakey (byebye to the Debian logo, byebye to glibc and gcc
documentation, byebye to RFCs, byebye to apps without clearly
Anthony Towns wrote:
The current rules are that programs don't get into main unless they appear
to have DFSG-free licenses, and get removed from main if it turns out that
there are some non-DFSG-free terms in there, and upstream isn't willing
to change them. DFSG-free licenses are preferred for
Andrew Suffield's editorial-fixes proposal deals with the contentious issue
of the meaning of Software and the limitation of section 5 to Programs,
by clarifying that the DFSG applies to *all* works.
Anthony Towns, doing his impersonation of someone who hasn't done his
homework, wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote (in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01835.html):
Currently, there seem to be several parts of the social contract which
attract interpretations which conflict with clear intent of the social
contract (as represented by common
AJ wrote:
Contributing and controlling are different things. You can contribute
all you like as a non-developer, but you certainly shouldn't expect to
be able to make demands just because you do so. Even as a developer you
don't get to make that many demands.
Demands? Did I make any demands?
AJ Towns, doing his best idiot impression, said:
Well, I'm sorry that you're so blinkered as to think that software cannot
possibly mean programs, but not documentation,
It could, but (a) that's not the most proper meaning, and (b) it's not the
meaning of the people who wrote the phrase. Did you
AJ wrote:
I don't really see how trying to convince the FSF to change the GFDL is
counterproductive; surely it's unproductive at worst.
Yep, it's unproductive. However, allowing non-free GFDL stuff into main gives
the FSF precisely zero incentive to change the GFDL, and in fact allows them
to
AJ quoth:
Well,
the other question that you seem to want to raise is whether we should
decide we've been hypocrites and liars for the entirety of our existance
by choosing a particular new reading of the social contract.
Well, you're only lying once you *notice* that you're not telling the
AJT wrote:
BTW, fix your mail reader. There's no excuse for breaking threads, nor for
Cc'ing people with a Mail-Followup-To set when posting to debian lists.
Sorry about the latter. Fixing the former is much more involved, quite
frankly.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a
Obviously, it's worth asking upstream to relicense before pulling stuff.
But
when upstream has *refused*, that's another matter. Isn't it?
Frankly, I don't think there's been a reasonable discussion with upstream
yet. What I've seen has been people telling the FSF they're immoral
and
.
--
Nathanael Nerode neroden at gcc.gnu.org
US citizens: if you're considering voting for Bush, look at these first:
http://www.misleader.org/ http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/arar/
http://www.house.gov/reform/min/politicsandscience/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
Rob Browning wrote:
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But then everyone else who is saving their time by using Sven's
driver would have to duplicate it, and that may be a significant
amount of time lost that culd have gone towards something more
useful (anyone who can generate
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have been told more than once by Debian developers (Christian
Marillat is a prime offender) that this bug is now fixed in
upstream, and had the bug closed then, even though no Debian package
has been uploaded.
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's reasonably common in real life voting to limit campaigning in the
days before the actual election.
Huh? In this country it's certainly not.
In the US, campaigning is prohibited within 50 feet of a polling place on
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And? You are aware there are other countries in the world, right? You're
also aware that common doesn't mean universal, and that whether it
happens in 10% of cases or 90% doesn't make any difference to the point
of my
Andreas Barth wrote:
Hi,
I herby propose the following editorial changes to the SC, as
alternative to Andrews proposal:
| 1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
|
| We promise to keep the Debian system and all its components entirely
OK, while we're proposing changes
How about
Raul Miller wrote:
On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 06:44:57PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
The current statement is:
1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
This states that everything in Debian is software, and futhermore that
everything in Debian is free.
:%s/and furthermore
Andreas Barth wrote:
* Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040325 00:25]:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 21:07:27 +0100, Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
Ji, I'm not entirly happy with this proposal. One change is a large
change: Is all in Debian Software or not? This of course has impact
Andreas Barth wrote:
* Nathanael Nerode ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040327 23:10]:
How about ...entirely free software. This includes programs,
documentation, data, and any other works which are part of the Debian
system (except possibly license texts which are distributed only for
legal
reasons
Andreas Barth wrote:
* Nathanael Nerode ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040325 00:55]:
Well, IMHO the old version is much nicer. The social contract _should_
in my opinion have some nice, not too technical start. A promise is a
very good start, and I'd like to keep that there.
You have a point
Raul Miller wrote:
1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
This states that everything in Debian is software, and futhermore that
everything in Debian is free.
:%s/and furthermore/and\/or/
On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 05:27:34PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
No, trust me, we parsed
Michael Banck wrote:
On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 01:21:33AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Raul Miller wrote:
On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 05:27:34PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
No, trust me, we parsed this one very carefully and took an excessive
amount of time on this in debian-legal
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 01:21:33AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Raul Miller wrote:
* There are people in Debian.
Fine, there are a bunch of silly interpretations as well. The context
indicates that Debian means the Debian system or the Debian
distribution. You
Craig Sanders wrote:
On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 05:05:57PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
This would clarify the main point that has been spawning endless attempts
by occasional maintainers to sneak non-free stuff into main.
what endless attempts would these be? have there been any
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Craig Sanders wrote:
| On Sun, Apr 04, 2004 at 01:38:15PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
|
|Craig Sanders wrote:
|
|
|On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 05:05:57PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
|
|This would clarify the main point that has been spawning endless
Craig Sanders wrote:
On Fri, Apr 16, 2004 at 09:59:36AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-04-16 04:32:57 +0100 Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 09:19:39AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Even if not decided unanimously, the jury doesn't seem to be in
much doubt on it
where's
Michael Banck wrote:
On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 03:01:29AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Michael Banck wrote:
In contrast, having the possibilty to modify $APPLICATION's stock
'File-Open' icon in its native form, i.e. gimp layers or whatever
seems to be of less importance by several orders
Buddha Buck wrote:
OK, rip it to shreds.
Thank you for making such a proposal. If I were a DD, I would second it to
get it on the ballot -- because I think it's a clear proposal worth voting
on -- and then I would vote against it because I think it's the wrong way
to go. :-)
--
There are
Michael Banck wrote:
Having the full source code (and not something obfuscted beyond
recognition) for a computer program so we are able to fix bugs and, if
necessary, fork it, seems to be essential to what we're doing, namely
providing the world with a operating system that rocks (and is
Michael Banck wrote:
However, it is very hard to determine and carve in stone the 'point of
no return' for a release, especially as we are still experimenting with
the way we do releases. But I guess we could have the release manager
officially declare a point somewhere in the middle of the
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Umm, I have nothing but proprietary hardware. Never had any
non-proprietary Hardware. most people don't. Indeed, is there such
a thing as non-proprietary hardware?
Yes. It's not at *all* common, but if you have completely freely
implementable/modifiable specs for
Yow, Debian uses a ludicrously complicated voting system.
How was it chosen in the first place anyway?
(Personally, I'm an approval voting fan. Easy to understand, and
particularly good when the most important thing is to avoid causing a
furious schism.)
--Nathanael
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 09:33:34PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Yow, Debian uses a ludicrously complicated voting system.
How was it chosen in the first place anyway?
(Personally, I'm an approval voting fan. Easy to understand, and
particularly good when
Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Hi,
Nathanael Nerode:
Yow, Debian uses a ludicrously complicated voting system.
How was it chosen in the first place anyway?
Voting algorithms should obey some stringent anti-politicking and
plain-common-sense restrictions.
See http://electionmethods.org
John Robinson said:
another example: DPL election, two candidates, R=45
450x DAB
45x ADB
Condorcet: D wins
Proposed: A wins
Amended: D wins
You appear to be making the same mistake as Manoj did, which I noted in
a message to debian-devel.
Under the proposed system (Manoj's), B is
Here's the nightmare scenario, under Manoj's amendment, which I think
John Robinson may have been trying to come up with. Consider two options,
A and B, and the default option D. Let the quorum requirement R=20.
39 people show up to vote. These are their preferences (most prefered
on the
breaking Condorcet isn't a meaningful thing to say. Adding quorum and
I think we all understand it to mean causing the system to violate the
Condorcet criterion.
supermajority obviously produce different outcomes to Cloneproof SSD --
if they didn't, there'd be no point adding them. They don't
It may be noted that my example involves on a fair number of people
ranking A *equal* to the default option.
It's possible to prohibit this, which would certainly simplify some
things. However, I think it is perfectly legitimate for someone to
consider something to be of equal value to the
Raul Miller said:
Which makes at least some sense: only 19 people actively approved of A,
while 20 actively approved of B. Granted, this mechanism only kicks in
for votes with very low turnout or where significant numbers of people
don't actively approve of options, but I'm not convinced that
Raul wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but: what Manoj's May 15 proposal
implements logically equivalent to your suggestion?
Markus Schulze wrote:
As far as I have understood Manoj's May 15 proposal correctly,
an option is dropped unless it _directly_ defeats the default
option with the required
Anthony Towns said:
excellent analysis snipped
Fundamentally, what it requires is for very few people to express
full preferences. There're only two reasons for this: one is that most
people don't understand the issue, which isn't what happens in Debian;
Or at least if people don't understand
not affect ideal
democratic winners, only the (estimated) 5% of votes without one.
--Nathanael Nerode.
Comments on proposed wording follow, generally not intended to change
Branden's meanings, but to clarify.
[PROPOSED DRAFT FOR AMENDMENT; NOT OFFICIAL]
1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free
We promise to preserve your right to freely use, modify, and
distribute Debian operating system
After some thought, :-) I have concluded that it may be preferable to
separate the proposal to drop Social Contract clause 5 from the other
changes. I, and probably others, care much more about nailing down that
everything in 'main' must follow the DFSG, than about what happens to clause
5,
Anthony Towns wrote:
What, exactly, is the point of removing non-free from the social contract,
if we're not going to remove non-free entirely?
Hmm.
To remove non-free, but not contrib?
To add new restrictions on what can be in non-free? (Currently the only
requirement for a package in
Branden Robinson wrote, in
E) I say I'm willing to seriously consider breaking up my proposal if
the Project Secretary can help me identify how many axes of
orthogonality he perceives in my original RFD.
These are the axes I see.
(1) Removal of clause 5, so that non-free is not guaranteed
entire text of
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01192.html
snipped
Andrew, I love it. :-) Every word.
This is so much more important than non-free or not. To me anyway.
--Nathanael Nerode
the importance of non-free software has greatly decreased since the
founding of the project; and
But, unfortunately, the FSF releases large amounts of non-free software
(documentation) which many people would consider important. Eventually
it will be replaced or relicensed, but
Craig Sanders ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
This non-free data documentation can still be used and even modifed by the
end-user, however,
Not necessarily legally modified. In the US you may need a license to
modify works even privately; it's legally unclear.
and the fact that modified versions
John Goerzen wrote:
What's more, if there really are as many people that find
non-free vital, they will no doubt posess the skill, will, and resources
to ensure that a quality non-free repository will exist for a long time.
I very much suspect they will do a better job maintaining it than we
Sven Luther wrote:
Also, another danger i see in it, is that if we don't have a a non-free
anymore, many packages which are borderlines, and which go into non-free
today, will be tempted to go into main (well, not good english, but i
guess you understand).
M J Ray wrote:
We make mistakes
Craig Sanders wrote:
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 11:44:17PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Craig Sanders ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
This non-free data documentation can still be used and even modifed by
the end-user, however,
Not necessarily legally modified. In the US you may need
John Goerzen wrote:
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 11:50:43PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
John Goerzen wrote:
What's more, if there really are as many people that find
non-free vital, they will no doubt posess the skill, will, and resources
to ensure that a quality non-free repository will exist
Craig Sanders wrote:
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 05:07:18PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
copyrights do not affect the usage of a document, they only affect the right
to copy and distribute. that's why it's called a COPYRIGHT, not a
USERIGHT. what you do with your own legally-obtained copy
Raul Miller wrote:
I'm proposing that we can update the social contract to eliminate the
ambiguities which encourage these misunderstandings, while retaining
the the sense and significance of the contract, and without any radical
changes in the project itself.
Old: 1. Debian Will Remain 100%
Anthony Towns wrote:
How about:
1. The Debian Distribution Will Remain 100% Free Software
We promise to keep the Debian Distribution entirely free software. As
there are many definitions of free software, we include the
guidelines we use to determine if software is free below.
Anthony Towns wrote:
Basically, there are two paths to having a main that's completely free:
remove everything that's not free, and have an operating system that's
even more flakey (byebye to the Debian logo, byebye to glibc and gcc
documentation, byebye to RFCs, byebye to apps without clearly
Anthony Towns wrote:
The current rules are that programs don't get into main unless they appear
to have DFSG-free licenses, and get removed from main if it turns out that
there are some non-DFSG-free terms in there, and upstream isn't willing
to change them. DFSG-free licenses are preferred for
Andrew Suffield's editorial-fixes proposal deals with the contentious issue
of the meaning of Software and the limitation of section 5 to Programs,
by clarifying that the DFSG applies to *all* works.
Anthony Towns, doing his impersonation of someone who hasn't done his
homework, wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote (in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01835.html):
Currently, there seem to be several parts of the social contract which
attract interpretations which conflict with clear intent of the social
contract (as represented by common
AJ wrote:
What makes more sense? Keeping stuff our users rely on and expect
available, having productive relationships with upstream and helping
improve their software, or blindly adhering to an ideal, brooking no
exceptions and ignoring any negative consequences?
May I rephrase this question
AJ wrote:
Contributing and controlling are different things. You can contribute
all you like as a non-developer, but you certainly shouldn't expect to
be able to make demands just because you do so. Even as a developer you
don't get to make that many demands.
Demands? Did I make any demands?
AJ Towns, doing his best idiot impression, said:
Well, I'm sorry that you're so blinkered as to think that software cannot
possibly mean programs, but not documentation,
It could, but (a) that's not the most proper meaning, and (b) it's not the
meaning of the people who wrote the phrase. Did you
AJ wrote:
I don't really see how trying to convince the FSF to change the GFDL is
counterproductive; surely it's unproductive at worst.
Yep, it's unproductive. However, allowing non-free GFDL stuff into main gives
the FSF precisely zero incentive to change the GFDL, and in fact allows them
to
In any event, RMS has eg written on the GFDL:
] There is no disconnect between our purpose and our methods. Our
] licenses grant the freedoms that we are fighting for. We are
] following the purposes and criteria we developed in the 80s.
]
] Lately Debian has interpreted the DFSG in a way
AJ quoth:
Well,
the other question that you seem to want to raise is whether we should
decide we've been hypocrites and liars for the entirety of our existance
by choosing a particular new reading of the social contract.
Well, you're only lying once you *notice* that you're not telling the
AJT wrote:
BTW, fix your mail reader. There's no excuse for breaking threads, nor for
Cc'ing people with a Mail-Followup-To set when posting to debian lists.
Sorry about the latter. Fixing the former is much more involved, quite
frankly.
Obviously, it's worth asking upstream to relicense before pulling stuff.
But
when upstream has *refused*, that's another matter. Isn't it?
Frankly, I don't think there's been a reasonable discussion with upstream
yet. What I've seen has been people telling the FSF they're immoral
and
This would eliminate confusion such as that from Ted Ts'o in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200402/msg00135.html.
It also fits the English-language meaning better.
--
Nathanael Nerode neroden at gcc.gnu.org
US citizens: if you're considering voting for Bush, look
.
--
Nathanael Nerode neroden at gcc.gnu.org
US citizens: if you're considering voting for Bush, look at these first:
http://www.misleader.org/ http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/arar/
http://www.house.gov/reform/min/politicsandscience/
Rob Browning wrote:
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But then everyone else who is saving their time by using Sven's
driver would have to duplicate it, and that may be a significant
amount of time lost that culd have gone towards something more
useful (anyone who can generate
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have been told more than once by Debian developers (Christian
Marillat is a prime offender) that this bug is now fixed in
upstream, and had the bug closed then, even though no Debian package
has been uploaded.
Anthony Towns wrote:
No, a leader's not a dictator. Let's delve into this some more: I spent
a fair bit of time advocating what I thought was the appropriate course
of action on non-free. I prepared a resolution, and it even won the day.
For my involvement in this debate, I've been called a
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
It's reasonably common in real life voting to limit campaigning in the
days before the actual election.
Huh? In this country it's certainly not.
In the US, campaigning is prohibited within 50 feet of a polling
Andreas Barth wrote:
Ji,
I'm not entirly happy with this proposal. One change is a large
change: Is all in Debian Software or not? This of course has impact on
the whole document, but is a seperate issue from the wording.
This is, in Andrew's proposal, basically an issue of wording.
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
And? You are aware there are other countries in the world, right? You're
also aware that common doesn't mean universal, and that whether it
happens in 10% of cases or 90% doesn't make any difference to the point
of my
Andreas Barth wrote:
Hi,
I herby propose the following editorial changes to the SC, as
alternative to Andrews proposal:
| 1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
|
| We promise to keep the Debian system and all its components entirely
OK, while we're proposing changes
How about
Raul Miller wrote:
On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 06:44:57PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
The current statement is:
1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
This states that everything in Debian is software, and futhermore that
everything in Debian is free.
:%s/and furthermore
1 - 100 of 172 matches
Mail list logo
