On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 07:08:26PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 08:59:24AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > > Of course, titling these as "editorial changes" was a good trick, > > contributing to 80% of developers being uninterested. > This is essentially accusing the drafters of the GR of being deliberately > deceptive in order to pass a resolution. Could we please stop with that? > I really don't see any evidence that the GR was intended to do anything > but clarify existing consensus, and I think these accusations are both > unfair and unproductive. Dude, I know it's popular to think everyone that disagrees with you is grated cheese; but there was no consensus that the social contract required documentation to be free. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> Don't assume I speak for anyone but myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Protect Open Source in Australia from over-reaching changes to IP law http://www.petitiononline.com/auftaip/ & http://www.linux.org.au/fta/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature