On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 01:51:46PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 07:08:26PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 08:59:24AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > > > Of course, titling these as "editorial changes" was a good trick, > > > contributing to 80% of developers being uninterested. > > This is essentially accusing the drafters of the GR of being deliberately > > deceptive in order to pass a resolution. Could we please stop with that? > > I really don't see any evidence that the GR was intended to do anything > > but clarify existing consensus, and I think these accusations are both > > unfair and unproductive. > > Dude, I know it's popular to think everyone that disagrees with you > is grated cheese; but there was no consensus that the social contract > required documentation to be free. I find this assertion unlikely, especially since I spent so much time asking around. And one of us has a tally sheet that supports their position. I'd say there was consensus, and a small number of people with their fingers in their ears, going "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU". -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature