On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 10:08:23PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > On Jan 3, 2004, at 20:42, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > >Good grief, could you have made it any more unreadable? I thought I > >already demonstrated that you could do it in about five lines and in > >plain English. What's with the simulation of a 19th century > >government? > > Well, e.g., Raul Miller complained about the lack of a rationale. So I > provided one. Feel free to only include the part after "it is resolved > that." As a matter of form, please keep rationale out of the body of resolutions - otherwise you raise a quandry for people who agree with the resolution but disagree with the rationale. > >I don't see the point in doing this now. If my proposed resolution > >doesn't go through, then we can and should merely vote on it again > >every few years, for as long as there is reason to think that a > >significant body of developers would like to see non-free gone. > > Possibly, people would like to be able to plan ahead and have some time > to replace Debian's infrastructure with, say, a non-free.org. Does this really require about two or three years of planning? I figured that as I'd written it, people would have few months before sarge releases anyway (if they just want to track sid, they have rather less work to do and no serious time pressure yet). More to the point, I think these sort of decisions are difficult to make for N years in the future, because you don't really know what the situation will be by then. Certainly non-free is less important now than it was when it was first created, and that is a large part of the reason why we're having this discussion. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature