Re: Candidate questions/musings
Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
> No, a leader's not a dictator. Let's delve into this some more: I spent
> a fair bit of time advocating what I thought was the appropriate course
> of action on non-free. I prepared a resolution, and it even won the day.
> For my involvement in this debate, I've been called a hypocrite [0],
> told I've personally broken the fundamental compromises behind the social
> contract [1], and told that I deserve to have the absolute worst assumed
> of my motives [2].
> [0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01914.html
This does not say you are a hypocrite. In this message, Nathanael
Nerode says you convinced him "of the historic level of hypocrisy and
wilful Social Contract violation in Debian."
> [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200403/msg00390.html
This message does not say you have "personally broken the fundamental
compromises behind the social contract". It says that you aren't
yourself willing to abide by a particular compromise about labelling,
and I think that is clearly shown to continue to be true. Nothing
there refers to a "fundamental" compromise; the argument made there is
that the compromise has broken down, not that this or that person is
personally responsible for "breaking" it.
> [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200312/msg00055.html
This message (by Andrew Suffield) says only "you reap what you sow";
indeed, the point is that you engage yourself in assuming the worst of
people. I've seen that multiple times. Indeed, in your failure to
read messages [0] and [1] correctly, and your misrepresentation of
them here, it seems pretty clear that you do exactly what Andrew
Suffield was implying.
And the really funny thing is that it was the pro-non-free camp that
insisted we shouldn't talk about this further if their side won.
Well, curiously, you're the one who thinks it is of continuing
relevance. Geez.
Thomas
Reply to: