Various Branden posts
> > I don't know where this came from.
On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 01:25:02AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> He told you. It came from <http://www.debian.org/intro/organization>.
Are you suggesting that the information didn't come from anywhere prior
to appearing on that page?
> > What makes you think that it's the duty of the technical committee
> > chairman to step in when no one cares to talk about a vote?
On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 01:28:39AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> When the antagonists have arranged themselves, are sick of arguing,
> have issues the CFV's per the Constitution, and are simply waiting for
> the Project Secretary to issue a ballot so they can vote?
Good question.
I posted to debian-vote, months ago, that I didn't think that the GR
had a constitutional basis. [It's probably too much to ask that you go
look it up, so: my personal belief is that the social contract is more
than just a document -- it also represents an agreement between us and
our users. The constitution currently leaves the responsibility for
changing agreements up to our leader.]
If "the antagonists" can "arrange themselves" without addressing
that issue, well, I guess I think that it's an excellent thing that
they're sick of arguing.
> Did you even bother to read my message about why the proposals should
> be regarded as expired?
Yep. I think you had an excellent point, there.
On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 12:13:42AM -0700, Karl M. Hegbloom wrote:
> > I cannot find the technical committee public mailing list archives
> > (Debian Constitution, s6.3(3)) on http://lists.debian.org. Where are
> > they?
On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 01:31:38AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Because either:
>
> A) they have been doing nothing at all, or;
> B) they would rather act out of public view, thank you very much
Close.
The committee hasn't been acting as a committee, because we haven't seen
the need. We have been acting as individuals.
I know that I, personally, have done a few things to keep issues from
getting to the point where the committee would have to act on them.
[This was in public view, but I didn't do anything in particular to call
attention to them.]
> Maybe both? After all, this is the committee that can't even see fit
> to report the identities of its chairman or membership accurately on
> the Debian website.
Eh? Now you're saying that the information on that web page came
from the committee?
--
Raul
Reply to: