* Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org> [2004-03-08 21:41]: > * Thomas Bushnell, BSG (tb@becket.net) [040308 21:40]: >> No, the "keep non-free" alternative does not contain any provisions >> limiting future discussion. It is also at best a "keep non-free for >> now" option. Yes, thats the way I see it, too. I can't support removal of non-free until a replacement infrastructure is available or promised before doing the real removal. When that is done I see no objections from my part (or, fwiw, I wouldn't expect any sensible objections from anyone) to remove it. > It also does not contain any provision limiting future flaming by me > to anyone who revives that discussion. It is also a "please let us go > back to work" option. Noone holds you back from getting back to work -- only yourself. I don't see the need for your flaming, and if it holds you off from your work I would suggest to leave it off anyway. So long, Alfie -- > Also eigentlich wird immer mehr automatisiert. Warum nicht auch die > Konvertierung von Umlauten von einem characterset in einen anderen? Weil dann Nöl, der Pöt, eine Pälla verspeist ;-) -- Thomas Dehn in de.admin.news.groups
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature