On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 12:34:31AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 12:22:24PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 08:47:54AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > And Branden, i find that trying to induce your fellow developers in
> > > confusion with a global GR like that
> >
> > Why are you accusing me of this? I've explained why I feel as I do. Do
> > you suspect me of insincerity?
>
> Well, i will not go and try to guess what your real intentions are or
> something such,
You just did.
> i was just pointing out the real problem with your
> GR, and the way it will be felt by many who look at it a bit.
"The real problem", eh? Your certainly seem to be quite confident in
your assessment of other people's opinions.
[...]
> That said, i still feel it is clumsy and confusion inducing to present
> the thing like it is today, and i think it would be preferable to hold
> the discussion about what we really want to do with non-free before
> holding a vote with (unvoluntarily maybe) hidden consequences.
That's not my goal.
> So, what is the plan, do we want to drop non-free from the archive, or
> not. And what will be the consequence of dropping (or keeping) non-free ?
That's a separate discussion. Please start it under a different thread.
I don't want it cluttering my RFD.
[...]
> This is the real question, the rest is just a tentative to hide this
> discussion,
Bullshit. You just said "i will not go and try to guess what your real
intentions are", and here you go doing it again.
> and make the future decision on this easier to pass trough,
> which will maybe take people by surprise later on if you tell them "ok
> we have these load nice editorial changes that seem reasonable and we
> ask you to vote on, oh, and BTW, we are also going to drop section 5 of
> the Social Contract".
That's a flagrant distortion of my proposed GR. I said point-blank from
the first message what the potential consequences of dropping SC #5
were. My propsed GR makes a decision to drop non-free *possible*
without violating the Social Contract; it in no way directs us to do so.
> So i would propose that we don't put together the discussion about the
> editorial and other changes, and the non-free issue.
No, instead you want to "put together" the discussion of my RFD with the
pros and cons of actually dropping non-free, which is not part of my
proposed GR. I don't want that shit cluttering up my GR. Discuss it
another thread, preferably on debian-project. Until you have some GR
text to propose, this list (debian-vote) is inappropriate.
> Better do it cleanly and openly than risk later accusations of
> machiavelism, secret cabal and black helicopter squads :))
Oh, I'm pretty confident now that you'll accuse me of these things.
We've already seen that the commitments you make at the beginning of an
email ("i will not go and try to guess what your real intentions are")
are forgotten by the end ("the rest is just a tentative to hide this
discussion").
I suppose it's the price I have to pay for not doing things the way you
want them done, and for caring more about the text of the Social
Contract than the outcome of a putative vote to drop non-free.
As with your insistence that people privately mail you things you might
be interested in instead of hiding them away on public mailing lists,
you presume to dictate how others will serve your needs.
If you don't care about my proposed GR, then kindly refrain from
discussing it. If you want to argue about the pros and cons of dropping
non-free, do so on -project where such discussions belong.
--
G. Branden Robinson | If you make people think they're
Debian GNU/Linux | thinking, they'll love you; but if
branden@debian.org | you really make them think, they'll
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | hate you. -- Don Marquis
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature