On Sun, May 28, 2006 at 07:27:05AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> The above is true, isn't it? The Debian-UK Society also arguably
> ignores the long-standing "Debian does not sell any products"
> assurance to Debian vendors, but maybe it's not part of Debian,
> so maybe not. There have been fixes, but it is a second party
> and no charity.
> What "Debian procedures" do you think were followed when establishing
> the Debian UK Society? Telling the people affected after the event is
> not the usual way.
Actually, it is. Most infrastructural things are implemented that way:
some people sit together, think "this might be a nice thing to do",
actually go ahead and do it, and then tell the world that something has
> > If you dislike it, you're open to start an GR. Otherwise,
> > please just shut up - especially when it comes speaking to
> > external people who want to donate money to us.
> When speaking to external people, ask for donations to go to one
> of the registered charities. Those should make it clear exactly
> what is held for the debian project, what are other funds and
> document the instructions to spend, unlike a private business.
Where and how does Debian-UK not do this?
> I don't think there's enough support for a GR (most DDs seem
> not to care about this thing in a foreign country) so please
> don't advocate pointless bureaucracy. There's enough else to do.
Oh no you don't.
Either you think this is an issue, and then you're prepared to go all
the way; or you think it is not, in which case you stop bothering
everyone involved with your constant whining about Debian-UK.
A GR is not some "pointless bureaucracy"; it is a documented procedure
for you to change something that would normally be out of your
Fun will now commence
-- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes", stardate 53679.4