Re: Debian needs more buildds. It has offers. They aren't being accepted.
Wouter Verhelst <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Sat, Feb 14, 2004 at 03:41:01PM +0100, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> > Wouter Verhelst <email@example.com> wrote:
> > > "We will be *guided* by the needs of our users [...]" (emphasis mine,
> > > but you probably saw that already). That doesn't mean "we'll jump at
> > > their every whim", or even "we'll do whatever our users tell us to do".
> > Please, use quotes when it is appropriate -- when you are truly
> > quoting.
> > I said enough, you are not forced to forge quotations to describe what
> > I think.
> Don't be silly. I didn't add anything to what you wrote, it most
> certainly was a quotation. You may think that I disrupted the context,
> but that's a different matter entirely. Just for the record I'd like to
> say I don't think I did misquote you, but I don't read minds and can't
> know what you meant other than by reading what you wrote.
> > > It means we'll listen to them,
> > [...]
> > > It does, but your interpretation of it doesn't.
> > Unfortunately, you share my interpretation.
> If that is true, then you should express yourself more clearly.
> > I said that users should have a say: it means Debian will listen to
> > users.
> Well, in my book, "having a say" means that you get to be part of the
> decision-making process. That isn't true for our users; they can express
> their concerns, and we'll listen to them when it's appropriate, but that
> doesn't mean we have to.
> We'll be *guided* by their needs.
> > Apart from that, anybody have a say on how others acts, unless you
> > live under a dictatorship.
> That's bullshit. Even in non-dictatorial states, there's usually a whole
> bunch of people with the power to tell you how you should act (the
> police, judges, etc). That said, I'd like to point you at the fact that
> Debian is by no means a democracy or a dictatorship.
Aren't we a loosly run electorial monarchy?
All hail king Martin.