On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 06:33:12PM +0000, John Kelly wrote: > On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:27:41 +0200, "Miriam Ruiz" > <little.miry@gmail.com> wrote: > > >2007/9/12, John Kelly <jak@isp2dial.com>: > > >> If Debian's highly esteemed social contract is for the benefit of > >> users, then why not let users vote. The outcome may be different if > >> another vote was taken, with language specifically exempting RFCs from > >> the DFSG. > > >This is pure demagogy [1] and adds nothing productive to the debate > >apart from trying to be a provocation. > > Again, if Debian's highly esteemed social contract is for the benefit > of users, then why not let users vote? > > Or are you just a crowd of hypocrites? We care about users that are offline and need to read RFC's: $ apt-cache search RFC|grep doc-rfc doc-rfc - Migration Pseudo-Package doc-rfc-0001-0999 - Other RFCs doc-rfc-1000-1999 - Other RFCs doc-rfc-2000-2999 - Other RFCs doc-rfc-3000-3999 - Other RFCs doc-rfc-experimental - Experimental RFCs doc-rfc-fyi-bcp - FYI and BCP RFCs doc-rfc-misc - Miscellaneous RFCs doc-rfc-old-std - Old Standard RFCs doc-rfc-std - Standard RFCs doc-rfc-std-proposed - Proposed Standard RFCs We don't see the point to bend our ideals for obnoxious or invalid reasons (having RFCs in the source package is completely useless to the user in the first place). So can you now stop, or at least bring valid arguments ? -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O madcoder@debian.org OOO http://www.madism.org
Attachment:
pgpQA6he8GHJt.pgp
Description: PGP signature