[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Anton's amendment

On Wednesday 01 February 2006 18:45, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Manoj, the Project Secretary, has said that, in his opinion, it does.
> He has also expressed is openness to being convinced to the contrary.
> Those who wish to convince him need to do more than just declare "it's
> all a matter of interpretation" and then point to the controversy to
> demonstrate that it's all just a matter of interpretation.  They need
> to actually give the interpretation they would like Manoj to take into
> account.

Thomas, I have honestly been trying to do this, but for whatever reason, 
it's not being communicated well. Partly, this may be because I'm been 
trying not to arguing a specific stance, but that other stances should be 
considered valid interpretations, not changes to a foundation document.

Anyway, I am done arguing on this. The secretary has my input and will go 
ahead and make the decision he thinks is right. I think it might not be 
what I agree with, but that's okay, he's doing his job (and this arguing is 
just me trying to do mine!).

Wesley J. Landaker <wjl@icecavern.net> <xmpp:wjl@icecavern.net>
OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094  0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2

Attachment: pgpGYp3RskKs9.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: