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

Re: Proposed change to Debian constitution



On Wed, Nov 03, 1999 at 01:46:27AM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> I don't need to swallow this. I tried all I can to bring the nm-discussion
> to a good end. Please compare wicherts original proposal, my input to it,
> and the input of many other people such as Phillip Hands, Adam Harris and
> so on, and then look at Wicherts updated proposal on -project.
> 
> From my point of view, it got even worse, and it has not moved just a little
> bit towards an acceptable proposal for me.

I don't entirely disagree with this actually; I'd rather n-m behaved
somewhat differently to how Wichert describes it. But I'd already gone
over that in -private and I wasn't really concerned enough to go over
it again in -project. No one else seemed to either, actually, and the
public thread in -project didn't really come to anything.

> What else can I do?

Restate your objections in public? (Forward the appropriate mails from
-private to -project?)

Become a member of n-m and subvert it from within? (Under the `those
what do the work make the rules' theory)

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. PGP encrypted mail preferred.

 ``The thing is: trying to be too generic is EVIL. It's stupid, it 
        results in slower code, and it results in more bugs.''
                                        -- Linus Torvalds

Attachment: pgpMaz8A37EDJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: