[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Draft for a non-fee poll (Was: Re: Let's vote already...)

On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:44:33AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> John, you are a fraud, you don't really want to resolve this issue, only

If that were the case, why did I:

1. Get this issue to a vote back in 2000[1] (though that vote was later

2. Second the proposals before us now, moving them closer to getting
   voted on now;

3. Oppose delaying tactics such as unnecessary "surveys";

4. Oppose GR proposals that cannot be actually voted on in any sane
   fashion due to being incompatible with procedures in the

I literally started trying to resolve this nearly *four years* ago.  Not
only can I tell you, up front and completely honestly, that I want this
resolved; you can also see, as a matter of public record, that this has
been the case for years.  Votes were taken (though never counted) on my
own 2000 proposal, which -- if you were to read it -- you'll see not
only resolved the non-free issue but also the social contract one.

> Go fix some RC bugs, and help make sarge releasable instead of loosing
> everyone's time with unending discussions you have no intentions to
> concretize anyway.

I guess unsubscribing from -vote is too difficult for you?

You might notice that I *am* fixing RC bugs, such as #221329.

> See you when you have actually proposed something, and there is an

Where have you been?  I find this incredibly ironic that people are
telling me to shut up until I propose something, when I already did

I simply have no response for that one.

> actual vote going on, and then we can discuss things. And expect a few

Oh come on, we can't discuss things untill a CFV is issued?  What kind
of a silly rule is that?

> ammendment from my part if your proposals are as ridicoulous and
> dishonest as the ones that have been passing around lately.

[1] http://www.debian.org/vote/2000/vote_0008

Reply to: