[This is just a thinly veiled personal attack; filling in the gaps for people who haven't followed -vote] On Sat, Jun 19, 2004 at 10:56:49PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 12:59:33PM -0500, Debian Project Secretary wrote: > > > [ ] Choice 1: Postpone changes until September 2004 [needs 3:1] > > > [ ] Choice 2: Postpone changes until Sarge releases [needs 3:1] > > > [ ] Choice 3: Add apology to Social Contract [needs 3:1] > > > [ ] Choice 4: Revert to old wording of SC [needs 3:1] > > > [ ] Choice 5: "Transition Guide" foundation document [needs 3:1] > > > [ ] Choice 6: Reaffirm the current SC [needs 1:1] > Choice 6 is titled wrong. It's not a reaffirmation of the social > contract, it's an affirmation of a certain interpretation of the > social contract. An affirmation of another interpretation of the > social contract was not allowed to be put on the ballot. Andreas made an ill-formed proposal which the project secretary rejected for this ballot, and refused all suggestions about how it should be properly formed. He appears to hold a grudge, I'm not sure why. Here's the thread root: http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/06/msg00000.html And here's Manoj's brief analysis: http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/06/msg00024.html > > Option 6 is the other position - that free software is what matters. > > Option 6 is the position that our users don't matter, and it's not > important to release. I already covered this one in my first mail, but anyway: this is based on the assumption that our users are best served by non-free software. See the thread parent for a more detailed rebuttal. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature