Re: Counter-Proposal (was Re: Amendment to the Constitution: Add a new foundation document)
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Counter-Proposal (was Re: Amendment to the Constitution: Add a new foundation document)
- From: David B Harris <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Sat, 1 May 2004 11:33:01 -0400
- Message-id: <[🔎] email@example.com>
- In-reply-to: <20040430224625.GE3168@wookimus.net>
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20040430215541.GB3168@wookimus.net> <email@example.com> <20040430224625.GE3168@wookimus.net>
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 17:46:25 -0500
Chad Walstrom <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 06:17:40PM -0400, David B Harris wrote:
> > The wordy proposal, while wordy, covers everything - and it also
> > provides rationale and context for the user.
> Providing context for the user is not the job of FD's or the
> Constitution, it is the job of supplementary documentation, non of which
> require GR's.
The important part of my sentence was the first part - it "covers
everything". Including actually releasing Sarge, which your proposal
Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in mud.
After a while, you realise the pig is enjoying it.
OpenPGP v4 key ID: 4096R/59DDCB9F
Fingerprint: CC53 F124 35C0 7BC2 58FE 7A3C 157D DFD9 59DD CB9F
Retreive from subkeys.pgp.net or risk key corruption