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

Re: Debian UK

Simon Huggins <huggie@earth.li> wrote:
> I note you didn't turn up to the AGM to try to put your point across - I
> can only assume that [... conspiracy theory ...]

Or you could assume that I dislike bureaucracy and drunken barbecues
(I can't drink much) and spent our last bank holiday weekend of this
year with my family instead. It would be closer to the truth.

I sounded several people out and the reasonable people I asked (some
of whom disagree with me) seemed not to be going to Cambridge either.
We'd all been told the AGM would be a waste of time anyway:
and you've been stomping on any bugfix ideas from the outset:

> You do realise that you are potentially making people think twice before
> they sell t-shirts/CDs elsewhere right?

I doubt it, but just in case they've missed the point, like you
have: please sell debian t-shirts and CDs, please donate back
to the project, but please don't call your business Debian yet.

> How many fine, upstanding UK Debian Developers have to stand up and say
> "Steve, Phil and Vince are great guys and should be allowed to continue
> what they've been doing without MJ's harrassment" before you stop?

That'd be irrelevant. Fix DUS however you want, but fix it.

> You had your chance for input as Phil has pointed out.  It's only
> recently you've adopted these attempts to destroy the good work that is
> happening in Debian's name in the UK; yes, in Debian's name, as it
> rightly should being Debian work promoting Debian!

I did a bad job of communicating on several occasions, but I
think it was a tough sell from when DUS was secretly formed. I
did state on 10 August that I'd start using messier tactics to
limit damage for me, so you had your chance for input too.

> If you're just pissed off about the Mark <-> MJ thing then this really
> isn't the way to get back at people for your own personal grievances.

That's not a motive for this.

> I'm done now.  I can see I can't reason with you but please reconsider
> your position.

Your idea of reasoning seems to be a compromise by one side only.


Reply to: