[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: "Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge" or "Debian commits suicide"



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


Reply to: