Re: expiry announcement
On 13 Nov 2000, John Goerzen wrote:
> John Galt <galt@inconnu.isu.edu> writes:
>
> > No, the months of tedious flamewars were brought about by your
> > hypocritical, ill-advised, and divisive GR. The DPS is not completely
> > blameless in this issue, but "let ye who is without sin cast the first
> > stone" and brother that places you at the end of the line. It's amazing
> > how you shield the fact that you made an extra-constitutional GR by
> > screaming how the vote wasn't IAW the constitution and whining about how
>
> IAW?
Genuwine US Navy acronym--In accordance with
> On what basis do you claim it's "extra-constitutional"?
Simple, there is nothing within the constitution that allows amending the
SC. This makes the process extra-constitutional. To use the precise
definition, since there is nothing within the constitution either allowing
or preventing it, it is by definition outside the scope of the
constitution, or extra-constitutional.
> > $gremlin_of_the_hour is MIA when you fail to recieve a response within
> > some pathetically small amount of time. To be more precise, one could ask
> > at what point in this process you became such an adherent of the
> > constitution, before or after you tried to use it for financial gain? Now
>
> Pardon me, but this is just stupid trolling.
So were your messages about Darren Benham (sp?) being MIA and IWJ being
MIA, but you wrote them. Sauce for the goose and all that...
> The Constitution is the process by which my GR must proceed. When, or
> whether, I am an "adherent" of the Constitution is irrelevant. The
> fact is, it's there, and I follow it in these procedural matters just
> like anyone else.
Do you? You could've fooled me. First of all, where is the
constitutional basis for your publically posting numerous emails about
$gremlin_of_the_moment not doing their jobs or being MIA? Second, the
constitutionality of the GR is a matter for debate, so logically that
means that there are those that would take exception to your quote about
following the constitution, including myself. Thirdly and most
importantly, point out in the constitution where it claims precedence
and/or authority over already published papers--the SC was published in
Jun '97, the Debian Constitution was proposed in 9/98 and ratified
in 12/98. What you proposed would be akin to using the US Constitution's
procedures to amend the DOI.
> > that the makeup of the Progeny CDs and the Progeny philosophy is public
> > knowlege, it's perfectly plain that you wished to retain non-free in the
> > Progeny CDs while hamstringing the Debian project's ability to do the
> > same. You failed, and now you're screaming at the top of your lungs about
> > the unconstitutionality of others actions to cover your own malfeasance.
>
> Uh, non-free is not going on Progeny CDs. non-free is not now, and
> never was, on Debian CDs. I have no desire to see non-free on either
> CDs. I want neither to distribute non-free. All the software being
> written at Progeny is GPL'd.
ftp://ftp.progeny.com/pub/progeny/dists/progeny/non-free
You wished to completely remove non-free from Debian's servers, it's on
Progeny's. Lacking a clear position statement by Progeny, it can be
assumed that everything on the Progeny FTP site is officially included
within Progeny. You wish neither to distribute non-free, put your ftpd
where your mouth is.
> Furthermore, my arguments for non-free removal were based on solely
> ethical arguments, not monetary ones. Had you cared to check, you
> would have seen that I have advocated those issues long before I
> started to work for Progeny.
Yeah, but you didn't propose a GR until after you were. Your action
followed your monetary interest, regardless of how your feelings were on
it.
> -- John
>
>
--
Do your part to help preserve life on Earth -- by trying to preserve your own.
John Galt (galt@inconnu.isu.edu)
Reply to: