Re: Question for candidate Robinson
branden@debian.org wrote:
>Here are the top ten contributors to the list over the past 14 months or so.
With two or three exceptions, all of them are DFSG-revisionists.
This pretty much sums up the debian-legal situation.
>People who accuse me of extremism should therefore ask themselves: is
>debian-legal a less extreme place now that my presence is nearly
>nonexistent? If not, why not? If so, then have I not solved the problem?
Non sequitur. I have not seen anybody stating that you alone set the
position of debian-legal.
>"Extremism" in any case is just red-herring language, a charge without
>substance. It tells one nothing about a person's actual views, except
>presumably that one's views are not in alignment with the speaker. It
Nice rethoric, but this is not true. The Merriam-Webster dictionary
defines extremism as "the quality or state of being extreme", and in
this context it is referred to a relative position from more widely
accepted principles.
Obviously, "extremism" is not a bad thing in itself.
>offers little more to a reasoned discussion than calling someone "bad".
>The ubiquity of the term "extremist" in U.S. political discourse, a field
>almost uniformly ridiculed by the U.S.'s fellow developed nations, may
>suggest a link between its use and the absence of substantive debate.
Or maybe it suggests that you accept U.S. political categories and try
to apply them in other contexts too, possibly as a way of ridiculing
your opponents.
>"Consensus-building" is the flip side of the coin. It's a generic
>feel-good term.
No, "consensus" is what we had before people like you started trying to
change what was the accepted meaning of the DFSG.
--
ciao,
Marco
Reply to: