On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:48:24PM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote: > * Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org> [2004-03-08 11:32]: > > * Gerfried Fuchs (alfie@ist.org) [040308 11:25]: > >> Which option is: "Keep it as long as it has been moved to nonfree.org > >> (with infrastructure) and remove it then."? I guess many are missing > >> this, and I just hope this wasn't forgotten. > > > > The GR is not about the next little step, but about the fundamental > > decision whether we want to keep non-free, or remove it soon. > > But that next step influences if I am for or against. If it isn't sure > that the next step (moving it to nonfree.org instead of erasing it from > earths surface completely) will be made I am fully *against* the GR. And > I guess I am not the only one. This is a needed precondition for some of > us, I am quite confident that I am not the only one. You are essentially saying that you will never support the removal of non-free. This precondition is impossible. There will never be a resolution passed which satisfies it. Your choices are: a) accept that you do not want to ever see non-free removed b) weaken or forget about this precondition The constitution prohibits us from making technical decisions in a GR (that responsibility falls to those developers who do the actual work), and we can do nothing to control the actions of an external group, such as the proposed nonfree.org. As currently written, the option to drop non-free is the closest that a GR can come to fulfilling what you want. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature