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

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

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.
(insert "in Debian" after "documentation", I assume)

Depends what you mean by consensus.

If you mean a 4:1 majority, then there most certainly *was* consensus.  Deny
it all you like (and you sure seem to like to deny it); it was there.

(If you mean an even larger majority than that, then I suppose you could be

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Reply to: