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

Re: Vancouver prpopsal (was Re: Canonical and Debian)

On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 08:23:57AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 12:08:23PM -0700, Blars Blarson wrote:
> > In article <[🔎] 20050606141347.GB24212@saruman.uio.no> pere@hungry.com writes:
> > >[Josselin Mouette]
> > >> However that won't help the architecture make it to a Vancouver-like
> > >> release.
> > >
> > >I suspect you have misunderstood the content and intention of the
> > >proposal from the group meeting in Vancover.
> > 
> > The intent was not at all that clear.
> Putting aside that issue for the moment, at the time the Vancouver
> proposal was released, it was presented as a starting point for
> discussion and not a fait accompli.  

No, actually, at the time it was released it was presented as a fait
accompli. After it received a wide expression of distaste and disgust,
it was then claimed that it was supposed to be a starting point for
discussion. If that was actually the original intent, then I have seen
few documents quite so bad as that one, since it left no room for

A starting point for discussion looks something like this:

 - Here is the problem: ...

 - Here are some proposals for solving it, along with discussion of
   their merits thus far determined: ...

A fait accompli looks like this:

 - Here is what we're going to do: ...

It's not hard to tell the difference.

There has, to date, been no 'starting point for discussion' provided
by the Vancouver cabal.

  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: