Re: expiry announcement
On 14 Nov 2000, John Goerzen wrote:
> Well, your e-mail was so illogical and senseless that I almost wonder
> if it's worth my time reading it, but I'll reply anyway.
Getting close to the last refuge of the incompetent?
> John Galt <galt@inconnu.isu.edu> writes:
>
> > > On what basis do you claim it's "extra-constitutional"?
> >
> > Simple, there is nothing within the constitution that allows amending the
> > SC. This makes the process extra-constitutional. To use the precise
>
> I see, so you flame me for doing something that is
> extra-constitutional, but mere paragraphs later you chide me because
> it's something that's under debate. Doesn't make much sense.
I chided you for doing something extra-constitutional, then chided you for
saying that it was constitutional. I see no contradiction.
> > > Pardon me, but this is just stupid trolling.
> >
> > So were your messages about Darren Benham (sp?) being MIA and IWJ being
> > MIA, but you wrote them. Sauce for the goose and all that...
>
> Uh, why do you think that my GR expired? Hint: it wasn't because the
> Secretary was present and accounted for.
Because most everybody was tired of it? Because you screwed up the CFV
twice (once on 7Jun and once on 29Jun)? <ahem> A.2.3
3. The person who calls for a vote states what they believe the
wordings of the resolution and any relevant amendments are, and
consequently what form the ballot should take. However, the final
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
decision on the form of ballot(s) is the Secretary's - see 7.1(1),
7.1(3) and A.3(6).
I never saw what you wished the ballot to look like. OTOH, you were
damned quick to point out the flaws on the DPS's.
> > > The Constitution is the process by which my GR must proceed. When, or
> > > whether, I am an "adherent" of the Constitution is irrelevant. The
> > > fact is, it's there, and I follow it in these procedural matters just
> > > like anyone else.
> >
> > Do you? You could've fooled me. First of all, where is the
> > constitutional basis for your publically posting numerous emails about
> > $gremlin_of_the_moment not doing their jobs or being MIA? Second, the
>
> I do not require constitutional permission to post to a mailing list.
> Neither do you.
No, but it wsn't entirely within the constitution, since the constitution
has nothing to say about the issue.
> > constitutionality of the GR is a matter for debate, so logically that
>
> Obviously.
>
> > means that there are those that would take exception to your quote about
> > following the constitution, including myself. Thirdly and most
>
> Obviously. "There is debate so people disagree." Wow, how profound.
>
> > importantly, point out in the constitution where it claims precedence
> > and/or authority over already published papers--the SC was published in
>
> §4.1(5)
Where does it say "that predate the constitution"?
> > Jun '97, the Debian Constitution was proposed in 9/98 and ratified
> > in 12/98. What you proposed would be akin to using the US Constitution's
> > procedures to amend the DOI.
>
> Interesting you should mention that, as in fact the US Constitution
> amended out of existance the Continental Congress in existance since
> 1774, and the Articles of Confederation (proposed in 1777 and ratified
> in 1781). If memory serves, the stated purpose of the Constitutional
> Convention was to re-invigorate the existing system until Madison
> wrote his new plan. By 1788, it had been ratified and the Contental
> Congress disbanded itself in favor of the new government.
Actually, the Constitutional Convention was supposed to amend the
Articles, and they did: they replaced them lock stock and barrel. They
did nothing to other documents: the Barbary papers were not repudiated: in
fact, in 1795, the succeeding Emperor of Morocco acknowleged them via
letter to the President.
> If you use this historical event as precedent, then we can say that
> the previous system of issuing things (basically, by fiat) has been
> superceded by the Constitution.
The only problem with this theory is that means that there is no real
method of replacement: fiat isn't there any more and no GR has
successfully gone back that far.
> > > Uh, non-free is not going on Progeny CDs. non-free is not now, and
> > > never was, on Debian CDs. I have no desire to see non-free on either
> > > CDs. I want neither to distribute non-free. All the software being
> > > written at Progeny is GPL'd.
> >
> > ftp://ftp.progeny.com/pub/progeny/dists/progeny/non-free
> >
> > You wished to completely remove non-free from Debian's servers, it's on
> > Progeny's. Lacking a clear position statement by Progeny, it can be
> > assumed that everything on the Progeny FTP site is officially included
> > within Progeny. You wish neither to distribute non-free, put your ftpd
> > where your mouth is.
>
> STUPID ARGUMENT.
I figured you'd understand it :)
> Everying on Debian's FTP site is not included with Debian.
Pre or post your proposed GR? Either way, it's irrelevant: you wish
Debian to do something you aren't willing to do when you have the
capability. Not everything on the Debian FTP site is part of Debian, but
the SC explains why. Where's Progeny's equivalent?
> Progeny is not yet released. We started with a woody mirror and went
> from that.
You proposed that the GR start with woody (Actually, your 6/29 message
said "removed from current Debian Archives"), so why not hold yourself to
the same standard?
> The matter will be dealt with before we release.
But you have a problem with the immediacy of Debian's response. You have
no such obstacle in Progeny: 6 people should be able to agree and remove
it within a week easily.
>
> > > Furthermore, my arguments for non-free removal were based on solely
> > > ethical arguments, not monetary ones. Had you cared to check, you
> > > would have seen that I have advocated those issues long before I
> > > started to work for Progeny.
> >
> > Yeah, but you didn't propose a GR until after you were. Your action
> > followed your monetary interest, regardless of how your feelings were on
> > it.
>
> Your proof of this?
Your .sigfile on the DD announcement of the GR--6Jun00
--
John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org>
www.complete.org
Sr. Software Developer, Progeny Linux Systems,
Inc. www.progenylinux.com
#include <std_disclaimer.h>
<jgoerzen@progenylinux.com>
You were already working for Progeny when you proposed the GR.
> You state incorrect conjecture as fact, which is an almost certain
> sign that you are sure you have lost the argument and are merely
> grasping at straws.
helluva straw...
> As I said before, I will not let my job hacking Debian and supporting
> Free Software interfere with my hobby of hacking Debian and supporting
> Free Software.
It sounded hollow then, too...
> If people like you are too immature to realize that I have done this
> personaly, and without being asked by my employer to do so (and
> indeed, without even notifying my employer I was going to do so), then
> frankly I wonder why you bother with Debian at all. If basic concepts
> like these are too difficult for you to grasp, I might suggest that
> you try taking a basic logic class at a nearby college or university.
Then why did you use your company .sig file on June 6? Just dumb luck you
tried to lend extra weight behind your words?
> -- John
>
>
>
--
There is an old saying that if a million monkeys typed on a million
keyboards for a million years, eventually all the works of Shakespeare
would be produced. Now, thanks to Usenet, we know this is not true.
Who is John Galt? galt@inconnu.isu.edu, that's who!
Reply to: