On Feb 09, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Moreover, while I think a majority of the developers are surely
> honorable, this is not true of everyone. Now that this is the *third*
> time we are being asked to vote on essentially the same question, I
> suspect that many of the prop
Le Mercredi 8 Février 2006 22:14, Daniel Baumann a écrit :
> I'm working on the rest of the helix-tools and real-player too. I'm in
> contact with Real to fix the helix-player license and to get an
> acceptable license for real-player for its inclusion into non-free.
> Unfortunately, such things ta
Britton Kerin wrote:
> I thought I saw some stuff on their web page about helix being GPL now.
> Not so?
Yes, but it is (not yet) reflected in the source: Most parts are triple
licensed (GPL and two non-free licenses from real, primary intended for
their commercial customers).
But.. some parts do
On Thu, 9 Feb 2006, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> Well, maybe the people who mislabeled the "everything is software" vote
> as an "editorial change" and deceived many other developers should have
> tought about this.
Maybe we could suggest another "editorial change" and revert to the
previous wording (not
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: sjfonts
Version : 2.0.1-1
Upstream Author : Steve Jordi
* URL or Web page : http://sourceforge.net/projects/sjfonts
* License : GPL, with special exception (embedding the font
doesn't in itself make a docu
Le Jeudi 09 Février 2006 10:57, Daniel Schepler a écrit :
> (And sorry about the CC instead of an X-Debbugs-CC... my local mail relay
> is silently dropping anything I send through exim for some reason, direct
> connections to external SMTP ports are blocked, and I couldn't figure out
> how to get
At Tue, 7 Feb 2006 14:30:01 +1100,
Anand Kumria wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 11:42:31PM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I just realised that the timezone data in glibc is taken from an
> > upstream database (namely ftp://elsie.nci.nih.gov/pub/). This data
> > sometimes changes
On Thu, 9 Feb 2006, Marco d'Itri wrote:
Well, maybe the people who mislabeled the "everything is software" vote
as an "editorial change" and deceived many other developers should have
tought about this.
There are two different definitions of the word software:
1. something that can be represent
Quoting Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Well, maybe the people who mislabeled the "everything is software" vote
> as an "editorial change" and deceived many other developers should have
> tought about this.
The only people it made happy are extremists. See #207932. This is a
very good examp
Attenzione.
Il messaggio email inviato a questo indirizzo da debian-devel@lists.debian.org,
con oggetto Good day, conteneva un virus e pertanto è stato eliminato.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Attenzione.
Il messaggio email inviato a questo indirizzo da debian-devel@lists.debian.org,
con oggetto Good day, conteneva un virus e pertanto è stato eliminato.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 9 Feb 2006, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> I'd propose to revert this and clearly define what software is.
I fully agree. The "Holier than Stallman" stuff is really getting
ridiculous. After the firmware madeness, now the documentation madeness.
And after that, the font madeness maybe ? (after all
On Feb 09, Adam Borowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There are two different definitions of the word software:
> 1. something that can be represented as a finite stream of bits
> 2. a computer program
>
> Definition 1. is precise, definition 2. is not (PostScript, pseudocode,
Unfortunately, def
On Feb 09, Xavier Roche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I fully agree. The "Holier than Stallman" stuff is really getting
> ridiculous. After the firmware madeness, now the documentation madeness.
> And after that, the font madeness maybe ? (after all, fonts ARE also
> software, and they shall be dis
> AT == Anthony Towns [2006-2-8]
AT> On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 04:28:19PM +0100, Davide G. M. Salvetti wrote:
>> If you are willing to help, you can find all needed files on
>> people:~salve/pub/apt/.
AT> I uploaded those files via ftp, and it worked fine. My only guess is
AT> the changes you
Le jeudi 09 février 2006 à 09:59 +0100, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
> Well, maybe the people who mislabeled the "everything is software" vote
> as an "editorial change" and deceived many other developers should have
> tought about this.
Hey ! Look ! We've just found a second person to think the change
Le jeudi 09 février 2006 à 11:12 +0100, Xavier Roche a écrit :
> Maybe we could suggest another "editorial change" and revert to the
> previous wording (not everything is software)
This has already been voted. And the answer was "no".
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :
Hi,
Xavier Roche wrote:
I fully agree. The "Holier than Stallman" stuff is really getting
ridiculous. After the firmware madeness, now the documentation madeness.
And after that, the font madeness maybe ? (after all, fonts ARE also
software, and they shall be distributed with their original sou
On Feb 09, Simon Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The binutils package generates part of its documentation from header
> files in order to get the structures and constants right. The headers
> are GPLed, the compiled documentation is under the GFDL. For this
> relicensing to happen, one mus
Hi,
You make good arguments and I agree with many points. But the following:
2006/2/8, Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Even if for some reason that I am unable to fathom you do fervently
> believe that I am wrong in the above paragraph, then there is *still
> nothing* to say that we can't ha
On Thu, 9 Feb 2006, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le jeudi 09 février 2006 à 11:12 +0100, Xavier Roche a écrit :
> > Maybe we could suggest another "editorial change" and revert to the
> > previous wording (not everything is software)
> This has already been voted. And the answer was "no".
Well, maybe
Re: Davide G. M. Salvetti in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I was trying to upload them from people to ftp-master with ftp, maybe I
> forgot to set the binary mode on (though I seem to recall that between
> Unix systems it shouldn't matter).
Uhm, use dput? It also does some checks on the .changes to see if
On Thu, 09 Feb 2006, Xavier Roche wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Feb 2006, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Le jeudi 09 février 2006 à 11:12 +0100, Xavier Roche a écrit :
> > > Maybe we could suggest another "editorial change" and revert to the
> > > previous wording (not everything is software)
> > This has alread
On Thu, 09 Feb 2006, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Quoting Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Well, maybe the people who mislabeled the "everything is software" vote
> > as an "editorial change" and deceived many other developers should have
> > tought about this.
>
> The only people it made happy are
On Thu, 09 Feb 2006, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le jeudi 09 février 2006 à 09:59 +0100, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
> > Well, maybe the people who mislabeled the "everything is software" vote
> > as an "editorial change" and deceived many other developers should have
> > tought about this.
>
> Hey ! Loo
On Thu, 9 Feb 2006, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > Well, maybe the wording was not deceptive enough ?
> Maybe people should get re-acquinted with GR 2004-04 and its results before
> they bring up GR 2004-03, even for jokes.
No, no. The funny joke is to modify the constitution with a decept
Xavier Roche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Thu, 9 Feb 2006, J=E9r=F4me Marant wrote:
> > I'd propose to revert this and clearly define what software is.
>
> I fully agree. The "Holier than Stallman" stuff is really getting
> ridiculous. After the firmware madeness, now the documentation madeness.
[...]
On Wednesday 08 February 2006 23:58, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> It's not about honor; it's about decision-making.
>
> If a majority sincerely believe that their proposal does not run afoul
> of the 3:1 requirement, does that mean that it therefore does not?
>
> I think that it is possible for peo
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Moritz Muehlenhoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: wormux
Version : 0.7
Upstream Authors: Jean-Christophe DUBERGA, Laurent DEFERT SIMONNEAU, Lawrence
AZZOUG
Matthieu FERTRÉ, Renaud LOTTIAUX, Victor STINNER
* URL
Am Donnerstag, den 09.02.2006, 12:50 +0100 schrieb Marco d'Itri:
> On Feb 09, Adam Borowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > There are two different definitions of the word software:
> > 1. something that can be represented as a finite stream of bits
> > 2. a computer program
> >
> > Definition 1
Hello!
On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 15:39:29 +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> Previous versions of Wormux depended on a development version of clanlib,
> that's why a previous ITP never made it into a real package and was later
> closed due to inactivity.
So, simple question: why not re-open the ancient
Re: Luca Capello in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> So, simple question: why not re-open the ancient ITP, instead of a new
> one? ;-)
You cannot reopen archived bugs.
Christoph
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.df7cb.de/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Fernando Ike de Oliveira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: gerwin
Version : 0.6
Upstream Author : Jose E. Marchesi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.nongnu.org/gerwin/project/what.html
* License : GPL
Description
Fernando Ike de Oliveira wrote:
> Package: wnpp
> Severity: wishlist
> Owner: Fernando Ike de Oliveira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> * Package name: gerwin
> Version : 0.6
> Upstream Author : Jose E. Marchesi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * URL : http://www.nongnu.org/gerwin/proje
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 07:56:45PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > documents. It clearly asserts otherwise, and one might assume that
> > developers voting for it would agree with that. If it won a majority,
> > it would therefore seem to be the
Hi folks
raptor.debian.org, the s390 developer machine, is down because of
disabled storage. I'll try to fix that tomorrow.
Bastian
--
There are certain things men must do to remain men.
-- Kirk, "The Ultimate Computer", stardate 4929.4
signature.asc
Description: Digital signa
> > It seems the headers Katie included when closing bugs of an uploaded
> > .changes file have been removed, they used to be:
To clarify, I meant the message the submitter receives.
> [1]
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=352047;msg=24;mbox=yes
I can't find any x-debia
Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If the developers are (as a whole) too untrustworthy to be able to vote on
> such matters without 3:1 training wheels attached by their elders, then who
> should be trusted?
So is it your view then that the 3:1 requirement is pointless?
--
To
Anthony Towns writes:
> On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 08:58:39PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Anthony Towns writes:
>> > In any event, there is in fact a meaning in that case: the 3:1
>> > suerpmajority would still apply to issues where the majority of developers
>> > felt that the proposed re
Anthony Towns writes:
> Docs and firmware in Debian should be DFSG-free [yes/no]
> If the above happens it should be post-sarge [yes/no]
> Common GFDL docs are free anyway [yes/no]
>
> As it happens, those eight combinations are only some of the nuances
> we
Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm getting sick and tired of hearing this over and over again. The last two
> votes were not about the GFDL.
Why did we take the second vote?
Hint: because the Release Manager pointed out that the first vote
required the removal of GFDL docs fr
On Thursday 09 February 2006 15:26, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I'm getting sick and tired of hearing this over and over again. The
> > last two votes were not about the GFDL.
>
> Why did we take the second vote?
>
> Hint: because the Release Mana
On Thursday 09 February 2006 15:25, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > If the developers are (as a whole) too untrustworthy to be able to vote
> > on such matters without 3:1 training wheels attached by their elders,
> > then who should be trusted?
>
> S
Le jeudi 09 février 2006 à 12:12 -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh a
écrit :
> > Hey ! Look ! We've just found a second person to think the change wasn't
> > editorial !
>
> A lot of us thought it was far and beyond "editorial", which is why GR
> 2004-04 was held with options to *entirely revoke*
Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What I do see are a handful of single-minded individuals (only a small
> subset of those who wish to have the GFDL removed, I stress) who seem
> incapable of grasping the possibility that people might disagree with their
> DFSG interpretations wi
[Christopher Martin]
> If an issue is highly controversial, then I can think of no better
> way of settling it in a way that most developers will accept than a
> vote. People respect votes much more than decrees, even if they don't
> agree with them.
And yet in this very thread we *still* have pe
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Feb 09, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Moreover, while I think a majority of the developers are surely
>> honorable, this is not true of everyone. Now that this is the *third*
>> time we are being asked to vote on essentially the
Hi,
It seems the headers Katie included when closing bugs of an uploaded
.changes file have been removed, they used to be:
X-Debian-PR-Message: they-closed 348721
X-Debian-PR-Package: xen-tools
X-Debian-PR-Keywords:
These messages included a copy of the original report ver
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 01:49:41PM +0100, Simon Richter wrote:
> The binutils package generates part of its documentation from header
> files in order to get the structures and constants right. The headers
> are GPLed, the compiled documentation is under the GFDL. For this
> relicensing to happe
* Loïc Minier [Thu, 09 Feb 2006 21:02:35 +0100]:
> Hi,
Hi,
> It seems the headers Katie included when closing bugs of an uploaded
> .changes file have been removed, they used to be:
> X-Debian-PR-Message: they-closed 348721
> X-Debian-PR-Package: xen-tools
> X-Debian-PR-Key
On Feb 09, Thomas Weber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Definition 1. is precise, definition 2. is not (PostScript, pseudocode,
> > Unfortunately, definition #2 is the one which almost everybody agreed to
> How so? Is there any document in Debian, stating that "software" follows
> definition 2?
On Thu, 09 Feb 2006, Loïc Minier wrote:
> It seems the headers Katie included when closing bugs of an uploaded
> .changes file have been removed, they used to be:
>X-Debian-PR-Message: they-closed 348721
>X-Debian-PR-Package: xen-tools
>X-Debian-PR-Keywords:
>
> These messages include
On Thursday 09 February 2006 16:41, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > What I do see are a handful of single-minded individuals (only a small
> > subset of those who wish to have the GFDL removed, I stress) who seem
> > incapable of grasping the possibil
On Feb 09, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This was necessary only because the release manager believed the changes
> to be non-editorial. I cannot even understand an interpretation of the
> old wording that can lead us to accept non-free documentation into main.
This may be annoying
On Feb 09, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Has anyone come forward and said "I was deceived by GR 2004-03"? I
Yes, multiple people did. HTH.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [Christopher Martin]
>> If an issue is highly controversial, then I can think of no better
>> way of settling it in a way that most developers will accept than a
>> vote. People respect votes much more than decrees, even if they don't
>> agree with the
Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Please don't be so doggedly literal. The point of my little parody was to
> draw out, in a stark manner, the attitudes which seem to underlie the
> viewpoint which you hold, whether you're willing to spell them out or not.
> Our fellow readers ca
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Feb 09, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> This was necessary only because the release manager believed the changes
>> to be non-editorial. I cannot even understand an interpretation of the
>> old wording that can lead us to accept non-fr
On 2/9/06, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 08:58:39PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > It's not about honor; it's about decision-making.
>
> When you raise the implication that your fellow developers can't be
> trusted, you make it about honour; when you think it's important to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Feb 09, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Has anyone come forward and said "I was deceived by GR 2004-03"? I
> Yes, multiple people did. HTH.
Who? I can't recall any. Can you provide pointers?
What did they say in response to qu
On 2/8/06, Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 11:50:51AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > If the GR is adopted by Debian, there is no significant difference
> > between "contradicts the foundation documents" and "modifies
> > the foundation documents".
>
> First of all,
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
>
>> On Feb 09, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> This was necessary only because the release manager believed the changes
>>> to be non-editorial. I cannot even understand an interpretation
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 09:32:20PM +0100, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> As it looks like my laptop is permanently dead, and it was the only system
> where I could ever test EVMS properly, it looks like I'll have to orphan
> EVMS.
May it an option to integrate evms into the pkg-lvm group which
main
As it looks like my laptop is permanently dead, and it was the only system
where I could ever test EVMS properly, it looks like I'll have to orphan
EVMS. (I could theoretically maintain it for quite a while still, so this
isn't a formal orphaning, but my testing options are quite limited, and there
Le jeudi 09 février 2006 à 23:19 +0100, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
> On Feb 09, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > This was necessary only because the release manager believed the changes
> > to be non-editorial. I cannot even understand an interpretation of the
> > old wording that can
Le jeudi 09 février 2006 à 23:50 +0100, Jérôme Marant a écrit :
> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> >
> >> On Feb 09, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> This was necessary only because the release manager believed t
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 09 Feb 2006, Jérôme Marant wrote:
>> Quoting Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> > Well, maybe the people who mislabeled the "everything is software" vote
>> > as an "editorial change" and deceived many other developers should have
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sorry, but there's a whole new generation of Debian developers here that
> simply won't develop anything in perl, just because perl looks too
> complex and cryptic to us. Now, with bash, perl and python, we can deal
> with the scripting needs for at l
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Le samedi 28 janvier 2006 à 21:16 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
>> God. Is this supposed to be rational technical discussion, or
>> an exercise in jejune mud slinging.
>
> Deliberate use of words a non-native English speaker cannot unders
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Consistency?
>
> There is nothing like consistency in someone asserting that "Debian Will
> Remain 100% Free Software" means "98% free software and 2% non-free
> other things".
Prior to GFDL, GNU Manuals used to have the same kinds of restrictions
l
On Thu, 2006-02-09 at 14:58 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Le samedi 28 janvier 2006 à 21:16 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
> >> God. Is this supposed to be rational technical discussion, or
> >> an exercise in jejune mud slinging
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 10:02:55PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
>> As it looks like my laptop is permanently dead, and it was the only system
>> where I could ever test EVMS properly, it looks like I'll have to orphan
>> EVMS.
> May it an option to integrate evms into the pkg-lvm group which
> maint
Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 2006-02-09 at 14:58 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Le samedi 28 janvier 2006 à 21:16 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
>> >> God. Is this supposed to be rational technical discussi
Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Prior to GFDL, GNU Manuals used to have the same kinds of restrictions
> like invariant sections but noone has ever battled for moving them
> to non-free. Then came GFDL and people suddenly decided to change
> the "de facto" rules. This is the kind of
Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That was a 3:1 majority out of 200 voters, considering that Debian
> counts almost 1000 developers and considering that many pros are
> convinced they have been deceived.
Who, please?
On Feb 09, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Or maybe this is only something that has been invented a posteriori when
A search in the debian-devel@ archive of the past years would be enough
to expose this as a lie, but maybe you were not a developer at the time
and so I suppose you cou
On Feb 09, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This may be annoying for you, but it's a fact that there is an
> > interpretation of the old wording which has been used for years to
> > accept non-free documentation into main.
> How is this relevant?
It shows that there was a widely
On Feb 09, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Has anyone come forward and said "I was deceived by GR 2004-03"? I
> > Yes, multiple people did. HTH.
> Who? I can't recall any. Can you provide pointers?
Sure, look at the flame which followed aj's message.
> What did they say in
On Thursday 09 February 2006 17:32, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > I have no idea what you're talking about. Nobody is calling for "strict
> > majoritarianism". What is being called for is that the developers be
> > allowed to decide issues of interpretation of the DFSG, as is their
> > prerogative
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Feb 09, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > This may be annoying for you, but it's a fact that there is an
>> > interpretation of the old wording which has been used for years to
>> > accept non-free documentation into main.
>> How i
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
>> What did they say in response to questions like "did you read the
>> changes?"
> I do not remember. I do not think it's relevant either.
Surely it does. People who say "I was deceived; and I didn't bother
to take elementary steps to avoid deception" h
On Feb 10, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Surely it does. People who say "I was deceived; and I didn't bother
> to take elementary steps to avoid deception" have chosen to be
> deceived.
Well, at least now you agree that the GR title was deceiptful.
> Were you "deceived" by the
Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But what you are saying is that the developers don't have that
> right.
Quite wrong. I'm saying they *do* have this right, and it is a right
that must be exercised by a 3:1 vote.
> Please cite the part of the constitution which grants the Secret
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Feb 10, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Surely it does. People who say "I was deceived; and I didn't bother
>> to take elementary steps to avoid deception" have chosen to be
>> deceived.
> Well, at least now you agree that the GR
* J?r?me Marant ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Thu, 09 Feb 2006, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> >> Quoting Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> > Well, maybe the people who mislabeled the "everything is software" vote
> >> > as an "editorial
On Thursday 09 February 2006 18:28, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > But what you are saying is that the developers don't have that
> > right.
>
> Quite wrong. I'm saying they *do* have this right, and it is a right
> that must be exercised by a 3:1 v
Thomas,
how does responding to a flamey thread that had already died a week and
a half earlier make anything better? (It doesn't even matter that the
point had already been made.)
Debian has a tendency to have many or most of its mailing list
discussion turn into flame wars, and this is bad, beca
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Thu, 09 Feb 2006, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> >> Quoting Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> > Well, maybe the people who mislabeled the "everything is software" vote
> >> > as an "editorial cha
On Thu, 09 Feb 2006, Eric Dorland wrote:
> If only 200 out of 1000 care enough to vote, then those are the people
396 people voted.
--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie.
On Thu, 09 Feb 2006, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> Option D (rescind the 2004-03 GR) didn't even reach the 3:1 quorum.
Sorry, I meat 3:1 majority requirement.
--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land o
On Thu, 2006-02-09 at 15:12 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Thu, 2006-02-09 at 14:58 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> >> Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> > Le samedi 28 janvier 2006 à 21:16 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écr
Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thursday 09 February 2006 18:28, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > But what you are saying is that the developers don't have that
>> > right.
>>
>> Quite wrong. I'm saying they *do* have this right
* Norbert Preining [Wed, 08 Feb 2006 16:57:20 +0100]:
> HI all!
Hi,
> When I go to
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=info
> it tells me
> ... to the source package texinfo's bug page ...
> But when I go to
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=t
Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If only 200 out of 1000 care enough to vote, then those are the people
> who get to make the decisions. We can't force developers to vote, so
> we can't be paralyzed into inaction by saying we can't do something
> because not enough people sent in a vote.
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 10:49:48PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Feb 2006, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> > Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > On Thu, 09 Feb 2006, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> > >> Quoting Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > >> > Well, maybe
On 2/9/06, Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please cite the part of the constitution which grants the Secretary this
> extraordinary power. Despite what Raul Miller repeatedly asserts, a minor
> power to decide issues of constitutional interpretation in cases of
> deadlock DOES NOT m
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> However, it *did* pass a simple majority. It doesn't benefit us as a
> project at all to have people making overly-broad claims about the
> significance of the previous votes. When I look at the relatively low
> turnout of 2004-03, the complaints sinc
Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 2006-02-09 at 15:12 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > On Thu, 2006-02-09 at 14:58 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> >> Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >>
>> >> > Le samedi 28 j
On 2/9/06, Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But why does the Secretary get to decide whether this barrier should be set
> or not?
The constitution says:
"... the final decision on the form of ballot(s) is the Secretary's -
see 7.1(1),
7.1(3) and A.3(4)."
I think that's pretty clea
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 05:18:18PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On 2/9/06, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 08:58:39PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > > It's not about honor; it's about decision-making.
> > When you raise the implication that your fellow developers can't be
>
1 - 100 of 130 matches
Mail list logo
