Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 01:06:21PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 08:22:58AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> > You're the Secretary. You're supposed to give answers, not speculation. If
> > the ballot was ambigous, or confusing, it is YOUR responsibility.
> It has to be said that at least I am taking YOU personally responsable
> for a lot of why the ballot was ambigous as well, not least to the fact
> you named your proposal "Reaffirm the Social Contract", i.e. SC-trolling
> the rest of the project not in line with your opinion.
I keep hearing this "SC is not binding" story, as if repeating it lots of times
made it true, but fact is that the project already rejected option 4 which is
the one that represents this line of reasoning.
If you're so serious about it, I challenge you to propose it as a separate
The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."