Re: Ready to vote on 2004-003?
> > > A part of the project is trying to send you the message that they want
> > > you to release sarge on the original timescale, irrespective of
> > > whether it gets completely purged of the non-free things that your
> > > interpretation of the previous SC did not consider DFSG-critical.
Scripsit Raul Miller <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > So why don't any of the proposed GRs say this?
On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 05:56:31PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> That is what they all say - at least the way I read them. We're trying
> to find out if Anthony reads them the same way. He won't tell us
> either yes or no to that simple question.
If that's what you think, I'd suggest you check with other developers
to see if they agree with you.
At one point, I'd have agreed that that was the intent of these GRs,
but most of them do not say any such thing.
> > > Those people are considering various ways of formally phrasing that
> > > message. They have asked you whether some of the ways being considered
> > > will actually fail to send the message. You have refused to answer
> > > that.
> > Why should this matter?
> How can it *not* matter? If the purpose of the GR is to send a
> message, the single most important fact when deciding which one to
> vote for is if one of the proposals will fail to do that.
Here's the message I'm hearing from you:
 you want find the "logical differences" between what the GRs say and
what you want the GRs to be understood to say, to find any problems so
that you can address them.
 you feel that the right way to achieve this "logical diff" is for
you to get Anthony to provide an interpretation of the GRs so you can
test what he says.
 you feel that the wrong way to achieve this "logical diff" is
for you to provide your own interpretation of the GRs (getting into
how they address the issues you feel are important) and ask others
(Anthony included) for differences between your interpretation and
Do you agree with me on all three points?