Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
> You've got a bad habit of missing the point made in an email, then
> trimming it so that no one else can see the point either.
If so, it's not intentional, and please correct it.
> My complaint was that you're making things personal; changing your
> phrasing in the way you suggest does nothing to alleviate that. If
> you're interested in having a useful debate, argue on the _topic_,
> not about the person advancing an opposing argument.
My complaint was specifically that you (and Sven, partially) had given
up on what I see as the crucial compromise behind section five of the
SC. Some people might oppose the GR pending for different reasons;
this is not an argument for the GR. Rather, it was an explanation of
a mistake that I believe you made, and that if someone with the
awareness and visibility as yourself makes that mistake so frequently
and so persistently, then it seems to me that the compromise
underlying section five of the SC has broken down.
It therefore was necessarily about whether someone with your
visibility had gotten it wrong--as I still believe you have--as a
necessary link in an argument that paragraph five has ceased to be a
compromise between two different parties, and has become the slogan of
only one party, which no longer feels bound to the other half of the
compromise.
And, if that is the case, as I believe it is, then paragraph five
needs to go, and if necessary, a new compromise needs to be reached.
Thomas
Reply to: