On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 08:50:16PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
> > [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."
Yes, it does: I'm one of the people who made the decision to keep GFDL and
other non-free docs in main. The place where that decision is documented
is http://people.debian.org/~ajt/sarge_rc_policy.txt. The decision was
made at the request of the DPL, but nevertheless under my authority as
RM, and under the authority of the ftpmaster group of which I'm a part.
You may wish to refer to Nathanael's followup indicating he was indeed
calling a lot of people hypocrites in that mail.
> > [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.
If it wasn't your intention to focus on whether "this or that person is
personally responsible for "breaking" it", then perhaps you should again
consider the wisdom of titling the thread "Why Anthony Towns is wrong". If
you don't think I've broken the social contract, you shouldn't claim
that my opinions or actions "disregards the current text of the Social
Contract section 5", or tell me that "part of the problem is your personal
decision to rescind the current compromise in the social contract." [0]
[0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200403/msg00497.html
> > [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.
Really? I'm yet to see any examples.
> I've seen that multiple times. Indeed, in your failure to
> read messages [0] and [1] correctly, and your misrepresentation of
> them here,
And I'm afraid I'm far from convinced that I've misunderstood either
message, least of all given Nathanael has confirmed my impression,
let alone misrepresented either.
> it seems pretty clear that you do exactly what Andrew
> Suffield was implying.
Andrew was "implying" nothing -- he was stating outright that I deserve
to be mistreated.
> 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.
Eh? That's non-sensical.
If the "remove non-free" resolution had passed, working out how to deal
with that should definitely have been discussed. Why do you think it's
inappropriate to work out how to keep the project going given the opposite
decision has been made, or to discuss the way in which the decision was made?
What would be inappropriate is trying to reverse the decision once it's been
made; but surely you're not accusing me of that?
> Well, curiously, you're the one who thinks it is of continuing
> relevance. Geez.
Why would the result of a vote not be of continuing relevance less than a
week after its announcement?
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could.
http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature