Re: Question for candidate Robinson
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 12:26:04PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 12:35:08AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 11:46:39PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> > > > He, i can inform you that in our "small team" as Andreas would say, for which
> > > > i came to post 300+ mails to -legal in order to not get our 50+ packages moved
> > > > to non-free without warning over a couple of dissident or other bogus tests,
> > > > there is a big concensus that -legal is not thrustable and no real help in
> > > > DFSG freeness.
> > >
> > > Why do you think that you would get no warning? It's not like
> >
> > Because the first mention i got of the problem was when some debian-legal
> > following idiot send me a bug report that my package was non-free, that
>
> So it's the fault of the entire mailing list that someone read it and did
> something ill-advised?
Well, they may have invited me in earlier before someone got the idea that
they reached consensus and that immediate action was in order, don't you think ?
and the early reaction of debian-legal when i first joined this disastrous
topic was not one to make debian-legal shine, and relaying on dubious chinese
dissident and desert island analogies, without even the faintest hint of real
analysis based on the actual DFSG. Clearly many of the debian-legal people
take their wish for realities, and the fact that they are usually unopposed
comes mostly because they have more times to lose than others, and usually
discourage reasonable people from participating constructively.
> > > I know it's easier to close down small debates early, but your
> > > tactics in the QPL discussions were disgusting and only helped
> >
> > Because i was disgusted. And the first set of of response to me posting
> > there were about those bogus pseudo-tests and not rooted in the DFSG, and
> > without any hope of reasonable discussion.
>
> Hope of reasonable discussion was lost when you immediately trotted out the
> insults and personal attacks, despite several peoples' attempts to keep
> things civil.
immediately, or when i had lost hours of work trying to discuss this
reasonably ?
> For anyone still watching, I prepared a concise summary of Sven's behaviour
> in d-legal here: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg01308.html
> I will admit it may not be the most conservatively phrased article, but bear
> in mind it was written after being one of the butts of Sven's invective for
> nearly a week.
Ah, and who was it that took said discussion on a more serious track again ?
And the above was nothing but an ad-hominem attack on me just because i didn't
curb myself and bow to the all powerfull consensus of debian-legal time-losers
?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
>
> - Matt
Reply to: