Re: Why focus on systemd?
On 23/11/14 08:47, Anders Wegge Keller wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 22:43:01 +1100 Scott Ferguson
> <scott.ferguson.debian.user@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 22/11/14 22:14, Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI wrote:
>>> On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 21:46:19 +1100 Scott Ferguson
>>> <scott.ferguson.debian.user@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It lost. Developers are not being forced to do what they don't
>>>> want. The winner was "developers will work it out themselves"
>>>> i.e. Debian won.
>>>
>>> Another reading being "The Developpers won, Debian lost"...
>>
>> Only reads that way if you have trouble reading - or simple refuse
>> to acknowledge the view of Debian.
>
> The Constitution might need to be rewritten, to support your POW.
> While Debian always have been a meritocracy, the constitution have
> its load of weasel words, that implies the opposite.
[confused] Where did I say *anything* about the Debian Constitution.
>
> A lose-lose situation, in my point of view.
Point of view is an apt description (no debian packaging pun intended).
What 'you' see depends not only on where you stand, but also what you
can stand and understand. Which explains by those with an
over-investment in an emotional opinion "read into" things words and
references that do *not* exist in the original material.
That's not to say I disagree with your assessment with the Debian
Constitution - only that it's not remotely relevant to my comments.
Please don't shift the focus, I "assume" your intentions are best, but -
it's disingenuous, divisive, and does you no credit. Please retain focus.
I don't "see" how endless meta-semantic pedantics by
"Monday-footballers" has to do with a vote by Debian "developers".
What next?
Shall we debate gravity or other pointless exercises[*1] (unless the
Debian User list has become a school for aspiring sophists)?
[*1] Context is everything - and this *is* the Debian User list.
Kind regards
--
"By the time you're thirty you have the face you deserve" ~ GBS
"By the time you're thirty you hold the opinions you deserver"
Reply to: