Asking for the ban of Frans Pop from debian-vote ... (Was: [AMENDMENT]: Release Etch now, with source-less but legal and freely licensed firmware)
Hi list masters and DPL,
Since it seems Frans is not able to leave ad-hominem attacks out of this
discussion, and given the precedent of my ban from -release on similar issues,
i now officially ask for Frans Pop to be banned from debian-vote, until such a
time as he is able to discuss issues, without being able to resort to
ad-hominem and defaming attacks like he has done here, even if in a slightly
Mails like his don't help the issue to be solved, bring absolutely nothing,
and are borderline insulting, and nobody want to go into another repeat of
what happened last spring.
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 04:33:06PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Thursday 05 October 2006 11:43, Frank Küster wrote:
> > first of all, I wonder why so few people from the teams involved take
> > part in this discussion. I assume one reason might be that they prefer
> > IRC. However, debian-vote is the list that's supposed to hold the
> > important information for the vote, isn't it?
> No, it is because everybody who is remotely reasonable (with a few
> exceptions who are mostly forced to stay involved because of their roles in
> the project) has long since become totally disgusted with this anal
> discussion and the people pushing it .
> Instead of a simple GR that leaves the decision with what is acceptable for
> Etch with the Release Managers, we now have a convoluted proposal that
> tries to do a lot more than was ever intended.
> So, no, I will not support the current proposal (though I may vote for it).
> And, no, I am no longer interested in participating in the discussion,
> seeing as it is completely dominated by people I don't agree with anyway,
> who don't seem to be able to listen to arguments nor have any sense of what
> the majority of the project actually wants.
> IANAL, but at least I don't act like I am, like some others in this
> discussion who seem so unbelievably sure that _they_ are right and so, of
> course, nobody else can be.
> I have much more confidence in the more general consensus displayed by
> upstream and _all_ other distributions that firmware blobs *are*
> distributable under the GPL (of course, if there are individual
> drivers/firmware for which that is in doubt, this should be investigated,
> but I've lost any faith in the ability of people involved with debian-legal
> to provide an unbiased opinion on that).
> I'm willing to discuss if they are free or non-free according to the DFSG
> and the SC, and will argue that Debian should allow (at least limited)
> support for these types of files. The current discussion in no way helps
> the release of Etch.