Disposition of original non-free proposal?

[John Goerzen]

Manoj,

I refer you to
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01185.html,
which summarizes some history.

My present understanding is that the non-free removal GR I originally
proposed back in 2000, which received sufficient seconds to proceed, was
placed "on hold" by you after you assumed the secretary position (see
links in the above message).

If other related proposals are to be voted on imminently, would it make
sense to vote on this one simultaneously? If so, what would be the
procedure for making it be no longer "on hold"?

To confuse matters slightly, in November 2002, I posted a revised GR
proposal which also received seconds (again, I believe in sufficient
number for a vote). Links to that discussion are also present in the
message cited above. This new proposal is the one I would prefer to
have voted on if any will be. Though in [1] you indicate that your
intent is to revive the GR from 2000, I'm not sure if that still holds.

Thanks,
John Goerzen

[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2002/debian-vote-200211/msg00013.html

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vo...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org

[Sven Luther]

On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 08:58:03AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> Manoj,
>
> I refer you to
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01185.html,
> which summarizes some history.
>
> My present understanding is that the non-free removal GR I originally
> proposed back in 2000, which received sufficient seconds to proceed, was
> placed "on hold" by you after you assumed the secretary position (see
> links in the above message).
>
> If other related proposals are to be voted on imminently, would it make
> sense to vote on this one simultaneously? If so, what would be the
> procedure for making it be no longer "on hold"?

Make a new proposal, and get the corresponding seconds for it ?

Friendly,

Sven Luther

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 08:58:03 -0600, John Goerzen <jgoe...@complete.org> said:

> My present understanding is that the non-free removal GR I
> originally proposed back in 2000, which received sufficient seconds
> to proceed, was placed "on hold" by you after you assumed the
> secretary position (see links in the above message).

> If other related proposals are to be voted on imminently, would it
> make sense to vote on this one simultaneously? If so, what would be
> the procedure for making it be no longer "on hold"?

Would you please repropose your version, and seek seconds for
it? I would much rather not revive a 3 1/2 year old expired proposal
(the hold was meant to say that proposals of this ilk should not be
considered unti other issues have been resolved, and not that the old
proposal could be revived)

> To confuse matters slightly, in November 2002, I posted a revised GR
> proposal which also received seconds (again, I believe in sufficient
> number for a vote). Links to that discussion are also present in
> the message cited above. This new proposal is the one I would
> prefer to have voted on if any will be. Though in [1] you indicate
> that your intent is to revive the GR from 2000, I'm not sure if that
> still holds.

I think you have sufficient time to add a third variant to the
two already on the non-free ballot.

manoj
--
I demand IMPUNITY!
Manoj Srivastava <sriv...@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

[Andrew Suffield]

On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 12:35:58PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 08:58:03 -0600, John Goerzen <jgoe...@complete.org> said:
>
> > My present understanding is that the non-free removal GR I
> > originally proposed back in 2000, which received sufficient seconds
> > to proceed, was placed "on hold" by you after you assumed the
> > secretary position (see links in the above message).
>
> > If other related proposals are to be voted on imminently, would it
> > make sense to vote on this one simultaneously? If so, what would be
> > the procedure for making it be no longer "on hold"?
>
> Would you please repropose your version, and seek seconds for
> it? I would much rather not revive a 3 1/2 year old expired proposal
> (the hold was meant to say that proposals of this ilk should not be
> considered unti other issues have been resolved, and not that the old
> proposal could be revived)

Isn't it about time to invoke the expiry clause on that old thing?

--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |