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 (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
*ALMOST FOUR YEARS AGO*.
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.