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

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL



On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 05:35:14AM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 11:29:38PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > (Hrm, asking for someone to handle this results in a motion for it
> > to be handled, and lots of seconds that aren't willing to actually do
> > anything. How helpful.)
> 
> That comment was unhelpful, and just discourages people from helping.
> Speaking for myself, I was waiting for Branden to conclude that he
> had enough seconds.

Oh, I think Anthony's just trying to make it clear that the fact that he
and I agree about something is the purest accident, and must not be
taken as inductive evidence that he and I have anything else at all in
common.  He's got his dignity to protect, you know.  :)

Anyway, before going *full* steam ahead I'd like to see if we get any
cries of anguish after my message gets covered in Debian Weekly News
(which gets circulated among the broader community).  However, Anthony's
put together an excellent draft to guide us forward, and we can
definitely be honing our arguments and marshaling our facts in the
meantime.

I run a Subversion repository at necrotic.deadbeast.net, and was
considering housing the documents there.  However a Project machine
would likely be more appropriate, and since all developers would have
accounts on it, it would be trivial to use the svn:// scheme with SSH
tunneling.

Thoughts?

-- 
G. Branden Robinson                |     It just seems to me that you are
Debian GNU/Linux                   |     willfully entering an arse-kicking
branden@debian.org                 |     contest with a monstrous entity
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |     that has sixteen legs and no arse.

Attachment: pgp0jBj7Srimf.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: