Drake Diedrich wrote: > The following log is fairly clear evidence I believe that the same people > attempting to ban debian developers from supporting non-free using the > Debian infrastructure also believe that the very definition of non-free > should be revised. The proposal to ban non-free from Debian servers created > a sensation of a slippery slope in many people. This log appears to justify > that sensation. In any event, it's pretty clear that there was an agenda. It is not clear evidence of anything to me. If anything, you demonstrate that there was *no* agenda, else there would have been better coordination. Also, I fail to see why you characterize what was being discussed as justifying a "sensation of a slippery slope", when you give absolutely no information concerning what the hypothetical amendments were. I assume (and candidly admit to the assumption) that you don't know. Neither do I. I, however, reserve judgement till I have information. To quote your own words: "Please support or withdraw this claim." > <Overfiend> CR: BTW, your proposal was very lousily timed, IMO. > <CosmicRay> Overfiend: oh? > <Overfiend> CR: it probably completely derails any chances of the planned 6 > +amendments to the DFSG that I told you about. :( > <CosmicRay> those are probably more important > > > CosmicRay == John Goerzen, the proponent of the General Resolution > Overfiend == Branden Robinson, one of the 5 sponsors One of the 5? There are more than 5. Please keep abreast of the situation that so concerns you. > Complete log available on debian-private or on request. > > To Goerzen and Robinson - who is next? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ What the hell is that supposed to mean??
Attachment:
pgpbLcedI5BH_.pgp
Description: PGP signature