On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 01:22:06AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 06:24:51AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > The nice thing about 3:1 majorities is, that once you've tricked > > something as "Editorial amendments" into it, a 25% minority is enough to > > block reverting it... > > Nobody was "tricked". I believe this claim so laughable, and at the > same time so insulting to Debian Developers ("we forgot to read what > we voted for! I want a do-over!"), that I don't feel inclined to argue > it further. Again, the SC is crystal clear; again, only a GR will > change that. > > My belief, from experience of many discussions on these topics on these > lists, is that a huge majority of Debian Developers agree that documentation > must follow the DFSG, that a fringe minority who want GNU documentation in > Debian at any and all cost are making ludicrous claims, and that nobody is > falling for them. I'm willing to continue arguments pertaining to the GFDL, > but these "we didn't *really* want to require documentation to be free" > arguments are going nowhere and are a waste of time, so I'm dropping them.
Only one month after GR2004-003, a two third majority of the Debian developers preferred in GR2004-004 reverting GR2004-003 over keeping the changes of GR2004-003. You do believe that two thirds are a "fringe minority" and less than one third is "a huge majority"? After the whole GR2004-003 mess it's hard to say what the majority of Debian developers really wants. > Glenn Maynard cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]