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:
pgpBucPJHabhl.pgp
Description: PGP signature