Re: PROPOSAL: Communication to solve the dispute.
Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> writes:
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 11:30:28PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org> writes:
>> >> This is a no-op by rule of the constitution.
>
>> Might be a no-op but its an ultimatum of a sort.
>> You could formulate it as:
>
>> That the developers in charge for adding the architecture identified by
>> dpkg as "amd64", hereinafter "amd64", to the "unstable" archive, is
>> violating the constituion and is warned to follow it.
>
>> Is that less of a no-op?
>
> No, then it's just a lie.
>
> --
> Steve Langasek
> postmodern programmer
It can't be both already covered by the constitution and him not
violating it.
So it's eigther no no-op or he is breaking the constituion and
acompaning rules. Pick one.
MfG
Goswin
Reply to: